linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 28/32] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap()

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]

Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 10:32:44 -0700
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...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>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <knsathya@...nel.org>,
        Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 28/32] x86/tdx: Make pages shared in ioremap()



On 5/31/21 8:13 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:21:21AM -0700, Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan wrote:
>> Following is the sample implementation. Please let me know your
>> comments.
> 
> Doesn't look like what I suggested here:
> 
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YKfPLlulaqwypNkO@zn.tnic

IIUC, following are your design suggestions:

1. Define generic flags.

I think following flags are defined as you have suggested.

+++ b/include/linux/protected_guest.h
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+#ifndef _LINUX_PROTECTED_GUEST_H
+#define _LINUX_PROTECTED_GUEST_H 1
+
+/* Protected Guest Feature Flags (leave 0-0xff for arch specific flags) */
+
+/* Support for guest encryption */
+#define VM_MEM_ENCRYPT                 0x100
+/* Encryption support is active */
+#define VM_MEM_ENCRYPT_ACTIVE          0x101
+/* Support for unrolled string IO */
+#define VM_UNROLL_STRING_IO            0x102
+/* Support for host memory encryption */
+#define VM_HOST_MEM_ENCRYPT            0x103

2. Define generic functions and allow calls to arch specific implementations.

For above requirement, instead of calling arch specific functions from 
include/linux/protected_guest.h, I have directly included the arch specific file in 
linux/protected_guest.h

+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PROTECTED_GUEST
+#include <asm/protected_guest.h>
+#else
+static inline bool is_protected_guest(void) { return false; }
+static inline bool protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag) { return false; }
+#endif

3. Implement arch specific implementations respond to protected_guest_has() calls right?

I think above requirement is satisfied in following implementation.

+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/protected_guest.h
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+/* Copyright (C) 2020 Intel Corporation */
+#ifndef _ASM_PROTECTED_GUEST
+#define _ASM_PROTECTED_GUEST 1
+
+#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
+#include <asm/tdx.h>
+
+/* Only include through linux/protected_guest.h */
+
+static inline bool is_protected_guest(void)
+{
+       return boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST);
+}
+
+static inline bool protected_guest_has(unsigned long flag)
+{
+       if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST))
+               return tdx_protected_guest_has(flag);
+
+       return false;
+}
+

Did I misunderstand anything ? Please let me know your comments.



> 

-- 
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux Kernel Developer