linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] x86/sev-es: Disable IRQs while GHCB is active

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: <YMNtmz6W1apXL5q+@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 16:05:15 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, hpa@...or.com,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] x86/sev-es: Disable IRQs while GHCB is active

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:11:37AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
> 
> The #VC handler only cares about IRQs being disabled while the GHCB is
> active, as it must not be interrupted by something which could cause
> another #VC while it holds the GHCB (NMI is the exception for which the
> backup GHCB is there).
> 
> Make sure nothing interrupts the code path while the GHCB is active by
> disabling IRQs in sev_es_get_ghcb() and restoring the previous irq state
> in sev_es_put_ghcb().

Why this unnecessarily complicated passing of flags back and forth?

Why not simply "sandwich" them:

	local_irq_save()
	sev_es_get_ghcb()

	...blablabla

	sev_es_put_ghcb()
	local_irq_restore();

in every call site?

What's the difference in passing *flags in and have the
get_ghcb/put_ghcb save/restore flags instead of the callers?

> -static __always_inline struct ghcb *sev_es_get_ghcb(struct ghcb_state *state)
> +static __always_inline struct ghcb *sev_es_get_ghcb(struct ghcb_state *state,
> +						    unsigned long *flags)
>  {
>  	struct sev_es_runtime_data *data;
>  	struct ghcb *ghcb;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Nothing shall interrupt this code path while holding the per-cpu
> +	 * GHCB. The backup GHCB is only for NMIs interrupting this path.

Hmm, so why aren't you accessing/setting data->ghcb_active and
data->backup_ghcb_active safely using cmpxchg() if this path can be
interrupted by an NMI?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette