linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_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: <f4b8bc3c-5158-cd04-6e12-77f08036ea19@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 10:22:52 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has()

On 8/15/21 9:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor
>> thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON.
> 
> What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be
> encrypted using the AMD's confidential guest technology but the HV tells
> the guest that it is not running on an AMD SVM HV but something else?
> 
> Is that even an actual use case?
> 
> Or am I way off?
> 
> I know we have talked about this in the past but this still sounds
> insane.

Maybe the KVM folks have a better understanding of it...

I can change it to be an AMD/HYGON check...  although, I'll have to check
to see if any (very) early use of the function will work with that.

At a minimum, the check in arch/x86/kernel/head64.c will have to be
changed or removed. I'll take a closer look.

Thanks,
Tom

>