[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ff3ceeb5-e120-fe07-2a0c-4cd51f552db8@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:32:38 -0600
From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
Cc: brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 43/45] virt: Add SEV-SNP guest driver
On 11/17/21 5:34 PM, Peter Gonda wrote:
>> +The guest ioctl should be issued on a file descriptor of the /dev/sev-guest device.
>> +The ioctl accepts struct snp_user_guest_request. The input and output structure is
>> +specified through the req_data and resp_data field respectively. If the ioctl fails
>> +to execute due to a firmware error, then fw_err code will be set.
>
> Should way say what it will be set to? Also Sean pointed out on CCP
> driver that 0 is strange to set the error to, its a uint so we cannot
> do -1 like we did there. What about all FFs?
>
Sure, all FF's works, I can document and use it.
>> +static inline u64 __snp_get_msg_seqno(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev)
>> +{
>> + u64 count;
>
> I may be overly paranoid here but how about
> `lockdep_assert_held(&snp_cmd_mutex);` when writing or reading
> directly from this data?
>
Sure, I can do it.
...
>> +
>> + if (rc)
>> + return rc;
>> +
>> + rc = verify_and_dec_payload(snp_dev, resp_buf, resp_sz);
>> + if (rc) {
>> + /*
>> + * The verify_and_dec_payload() will fail only if the hypervisor is
>> + * actively modifiying the message header or corrupting the encrypted payload.
> modifiying
>> + * This hints that hypervisor is acting in a bad faith. Disable the VMPCK so that
>> + * the key cannot be used for any communication.
>> + */
>
> This looks great, thanks for changes Brijesh. Should we mention in
> comment here or at snp_disable_vmpck() the AES-GCM issues with
> continuing to use the key? Or will future updaters to this code
> understand already?
>
Sure, I can add comment about the AES-GCM.
...
>> +
>> +/* See SNP spec SNP_GUEST_REQUEST section for the structure */
>> +enum msg_type {
>> + SNP_MSG_TYPE_INVALID = 0,
>> + SNP_MSG_CPUID_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_CPUID_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_KEY_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_KEY_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_REPORT_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_REPORT_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_EXPORT_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_EXPORT_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_IMPORT_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_IMPORT_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_ABSORB_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_ABSORB_RSP,
>> + SNP_MSG_VMRK_REQ,
>> + SNP_MSG_VMRK_RSP,
>
> Did you want to include MSG_ABSORB_NOMA_REQ and MSG_ABSORB_NOMA_RESP here?
>
Yes, I can includes those for the completeness.
...
>> +struct snp_report_req {
>> + /* message version number (must be non-zero) */
>> + __u8 msg_version;
>> +
>> + /* user data that should be included in the report */
>> + __u8 user_data[64];
>
> Are we missing the 'vmpl' field here? Does those default all requests
> to be signed with VMPL0? Users might want to change that, they could
> be using a paravisor.
>
Good question, so far I was thinking that guest kernel will provide its
vmpl level instead of accepted the vmpl level from the userspace. Do you
see a need for a userspace to provide this information ?
thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists