linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 10/30] x86/tdx: Handle CPUID via #VE

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: <20220228233125.z35h5f7lpvspfohv@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 02:31:25 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
        joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 10/30] x86/tdx: Handle CPUID via #VE

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 03:05:26PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/28/22 14:53, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 08:41:38AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >>> We realise that this is possible vector of attack and plan to implement
> >>> proper filtering. But it is beyon core enabling.
> >>>
> >>>> Is this better than just returning 0's, for instance?
> >>> Plain 0 injection breaks the boot. More complicated solution is need.
> >> OK, so we're leaving the kernel open to something that might be an
> >> attack vector: we know that we don't know how this might be bad.  It's a
> >> "known unknown"[1].
> > I looked deeper. The only CPUIDs that actually required are from the
> > hypervisor range (the range is reserved and never will be used by CPU, so
> > hypervisors adopt it for own use).
> > 
> > So this filtering makes kernel boot (I didn't test much beyond that).
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * Only allow VMM to control range reserved for hypervisor
> > 	 * communication.
> > 	 *
> > 	 * Return all-zeros for any CPUID outside the range.
> > 	 */
> > 	if (regs->ax < 0x40000000 || regs->ax > 0x4FFFFFFF) {
> > 		regs->ax = regs->bx = regs->cx = regs->dx = 0;
> > 		return true;
> > 	}
> > 
> > We may tighten the range further (only few leafs from the range is
> > actually used during the boot), but this should be good enough for this
> > stage of enabling.
> 
> Seems sane to me.  This closes off basically any ability for the VMM to
> confuse the guest with CPUID values except for the ones that *must* by
> hypervisor-controlled.
> 
> Does this, in practice, keep TDX guests from detecting any features that
> it supports today?

I scanned through the list of CPUID that probed via #VE during the boot
and they are related to cache/TLB hierarchy enumeration, thermal and
topology. Without cache/TLB enumeration we may miss some optimization.
Topology can be problematic, we may miss ability to communicate the
configuration, I donno.

Shouldn't be a show-stopper.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov