linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 21/45] x86/mm: Add support to validate memory when changing C-bit

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: <7712e67b-f1c4-b818-ce20-b37e2a0e329b@amd.com>
Date:   Sun, 13 Feb 2022 08:50:48 -0600
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     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>,
        "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 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>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        brijesh.ksingh@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 21/45] x86/mm: Add support to validate memory when
 changing C-bit

On 2/13/22 06:15, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:27:54AM -0600, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>> Simply have them always present. They will have !0 values on the
>>> respective guest types and 0 otherwise. This should simplify a lot of
>>> code and another unconditionally present u64 won't be the end of the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> Any other aspect I'm missing?
>>
>> I think that's mostly about it. IIUC, the recommendation is to define a
>> new callback in x86_platform_op. The callback will be invoked
>> unconditionally; The default implementation for this callback is NOP;
>> The TDX and SEV will override with the platform specific implementation.
>> I think we may able to handle everything in one callback hook but having
>> pre and post will be a more desirable. Here is why I am thinking so:
>>
>> * On SNP, the page must be invalidated before clearing the _PAGE_ENC
>> from the page table attribute
>>
>> * On SNP, the page must be validated after setting the _PAGE_ENC in the
>> page table attribute.
> 
> Right, we could have a pre- and post- callback, if that would make
> things simpler/clearer.
> 
> Also, in thinking further about the encryption mask, we could make it a
> *single*, *global* variable called cc_mask which each guest type sets it
> as it wants to.
> 
> Then, it would use it in the vendor-specific encrypt/decrypt helpers
> accordingly and that would simplify a lot of code. And we can get rid of
> all the ifdeffery around it too.
> 
> So I think the way to go should be we do the common functionality, I
> queue it on the common tip:x86/cc branch and then SNP and TDX will be
> both based ontop of it.
> 
> Thoughts?

I think there were a lot of assumptions that only SME/SEV would set 
sme_me_mask and that is used, for example, in the cc_platform_has() 
routine to figure out whether we're AMD or Intel. If you go the cc_mask 
route, I think we'll need to add a cc_vendor variable that would then be 
checked in cc_platform_has(). All other uses of sme_me_mask would need to 
be audited to see whether cc_vendor would need to be checked, too.

Thanks,
Tom

>