linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/14] KVM: s390: pv: handle secure storage exceptions for normal guests

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: <f442a49f-dbc4-5c38-ffa1-6b17742592c3@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Oct 2021 10:16:26 +0200
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     cohuck@...hat.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/14] KVM: s390: pv: handle secure storage exceptions
 for normal guests

On 9/20/21 15:24, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> With upcoming patches, normal guests might touch secure pages.
> 
> This patch extends the existing exception handler to convert the pages
> to non secure also when the exception is triggered by a normal guest.
> 
> This can happen for example when a secure guest reboots; the first
> stage of a secure guest is non secure, and in general a secure guest
> can reboot into non-secure mode.
> 
> If the secure memory of the previous boot has not been cleared up
> completely yet, a non-secure guest might touch secure memory, which
> will need to be handled properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 10 +++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> index eb68b4f36927..74784581f42d 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> @@ -767,6 +767,7 @@ void do_secure_storage_access(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>   	struct mm_struct *mm;
>   	struct page *page;
> +	struct gmap *gmap;
>   	int rc;
>   
>   	/*
> @@ -796,6 +797,14 @@ void do_secure_storage_access(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   	}
>   
>   	switch (get_fault_type(regs)) {
> +	case GMAP_FAULT:
> +		gmap = (struct gmap *)S390_lowcore.gmap;
> +		addr = __gmap_translate(gmap, addr);
> +		if (IS_ERR_VALUE(addr)) {
> +			do_fault_error(regs, VM_ACCESS_FLAGS, VM_FAULT_BADMAP);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		fallthrough;

This would trigger an export and not a destroy, right?

>   	case USER_FAULT:
>   		mm = current->mm;
>   		mmap_read_lock(mm);
> @@ -824,7 +833,6 @@ void do_secure_storage_access(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   		if (rc)
>   			BUG();
>   		break;
> -	case GMAP_FAULT:
>   	default:
>   		do_fault_error(regs, VM_READ | VM_WRITE, VM_FAULT_BADMAP);
>   		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>