linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 08/32] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <73752227-6eaf-2de6-3ac6-5ee280980c18@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 12:47:04 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 08/32] x86/traps: Add #VE support for TDX guest


On 5/7/2021 2:36 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/26/21 11:01 AM, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> ...
>> The #VE cannot be nested before TDGETVEINFO is called, if there is any
>> reason for it to nest the TD would shut down. The TDX module guarantees
>> that no NMIs (or #MC or similar) can happen in this window. After
>> TDGETVEINFO the #VE handler can nest if needed, although we don’t expect
>> it to happen normally.
> I think this description really needs some work.  Does "The #VE cannot
> be nested" mean that "hardware guarantees that #VE will not be
> generated", or "the #VE must not be nested"?

The next half sentence answers this question..

"if there is any reason for it to nest the TD would shut down."

So it cannot nest.


>
> What does "the TD would shut down" mean?  I think you mean that instead
> of delivering a nested #VE the hardware would actually exit to the host
> and TDX would prevent the guest from being reentered.  Right?


Yes that's a shutdown. I Suppose we could add your sentence.


> I find that description a bit unsatisfying.  Could we make this a bit
> more concrete?


I don't see what could be added. If you have concrete suggestions please 
just propose something.


>   By the way, what about *normal* interrupts?


Normal interrupts are blocked of course like in every other exception or 
interrupt entry.

>
> Maybe we should talk about this in terms of *rules* that folks need to
> follow.  Maybe:
>
> 	NMIs and machine checks are suppressed.  Before this point any
> 	#VE is fatal.  After this point, NMIs and additional #VEs are
> 	permitted.

Okay that's fine for me.


-Andi