linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 22/40] x86/sev: move MSR-based VMGEXITs for CPUID to helper

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:   Tue, 4 Jan 2022 17:36:14 -0600
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     Brijesh Singh <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>,
        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 Gonda <pgonda@...gle.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>,
        "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 v8 22/40] x86/sev: move MSR-based VMGEXITs for CPUID to
 helper

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:52:52PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > From: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
> > 
> > This code will also be used later for SEV-SNP-validated CPUID code in
> > some cases, so move it to a common helper.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
> > index 3aaef1a18ffe..d89481b31022 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/sev-shared.c
> > @@ -194,6 +194,58 @@ enum es_result sev_es_ghcb_hv_call(struct ghcb *ghcb, bool set_ghcb_msr,
> >  	return verify_exception_info(ghcb, ctxt);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int sev_cpuid_hv(u32 func, u32 subfunc, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx,
> 
> Having @subfunc, a.k.a. index, in is weird/confusing/fragile because it's not consumed,
> nor is it checked.  Peeking ahead, it looks like all future users pass '0'.  Taking the
> index but dropping it on the floor is asking for future breakage.  Either drop it or
> assert that it's zero.
> 
> > +			u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
> > +{
> > +	u64 val;
> > +
> > +	if (eax) {
> > +		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EAX));
> > +		VMGEXIT();
> > +		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
> > +
> > +		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
> > +			return -EIO;
> > +
> > +		*eax = (val >> 32);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (ebx) {
> > +		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EBX));
> > +		VMGEXIT();
> > +		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
> > +
> > +		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
> > +			return -EIO;
> > +
> > +		*ebx = (val >> 32);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (ecx) {
> > +		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_ECX));
> > +		VMGEXIT();
> > +		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
> > +
> > +		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
> > +			return -EIO;
> > +
> > +		*ecx = (val >> 32);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (edx) {
> > +		sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EDX));
> > +		VMGEXIT();
> > +		val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
> > +
> > +		if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
> > +			return -EIO;
> > +
> > +		*edx = (val >> 32);
> > +	}
> 
> That's a lot of pasta!  If you add
> 
>   static int __sev_cpuid_hv(u32 func, int reg_idx, u32 *reg)
>   {
> 	u64 val;
> 
> 	if (!reg)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	sev_es_wr_ghcb_msr(GHCB_CPUID_REQ(func, reg_idx));
> 	VMGEXIT();
> 	val = sev_es_rd_ghcb_msr();
> 	if (GHCB_RESP_CODE(val) != GHCB_MSR_CPUID_RESP)
> 		return -EIO;
> 
> 	*reg = (val >> 32);
> 	return 0;
>   }
> 
> then this helper can become something like:
> 
>   static int sev_cpuid_hv(u32 func, u32 *eax, u32 *ebx, u32 *ecx, u32 *edx)
>   {
> 	int ret;
> 
> 	ret = __sev_cpuid_hv(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EAX, eax);
> 	ret = ret ? : __sev_cpuid_hv(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EBX, ebx);
> 	ret = ret ? : __sev_cpuid_hv(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_ECX, ecx);
> 	ret = ret ? : __sev_cpuid_hv(func, GHCB_CPUID_REQ_EDX, edx);
> 
> 	return ret;

Looks good, will make these changes.

-Mike