linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] platform/x86: intel_tdx_attest: Add TDX Guest attestation interface driver

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: <5371d2df8940226674f27a7ce950e9ae1468a951.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:38:09 +1200
From:   Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] platform/x86: intel_tdx_attest: Add TDX Guest
 attestation interface driver

On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 07:00 -0700, Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy wrote:
> 
> On 4/19/22 1:16 AM, Kai Huang wrote:
> > In fact after slightly thinking more, I think you can split TDREPORT TDCALL
> > support with GetQuote/SetupEventNotifyInterrupt support.  The reason is as I
> > said, GetQuote isn't mandatory to support attestation.  TD attestation agent can
> > use i.e. vsock, tcp/ip, to communicate to QE directly.  Whether kernel needs to
> > support GetQuote is actually arguable.
> 
> IMO, we should not use a usage model to categorize "GetQuote" support
> as a mandatory or non-mandatory requirement.
> 
> For customers who use VSOCK, they can get away without GetQuote
> TDVMCALL support. But for customers who do not want to use
> VSOCK model, this is a required support. AFAIK, our current customer
> requirement is to use TDVMCALL approach for attestation support.
> 
> If your suggestion is to split GetQuote support as separate
> patch to make it easier for review, I am fine with such
> suggestion.
> 

I am not saying we should get rid of GetQuote support.  If there's customer
wants this with a good reason, we can certainly support it.  I understand that
some customer wants to deploy QE in host and don't want additional communication
channel (i.e. vsock) between guest and host, which may add additional attack
window and/or customer's validation resource.

My point is regardless whether we need to support GetQuote, logically this
driver can be split to two parts as I said: 1) basic TDREPORT support to
userspace; 2) additional GetQuote support.  And I think there are many benefits
if you do in this way as I commented below.


> > 
> > So IMHO you can split this attestation driver into two parts:
> > 
> > 1) A "basic" driver which supports reporting TDREPORT to userspace
> > 2) Additional support of GetQuote/SetupEventNotifyInterrupt.
> > 
> > The 1) can even be in a single patch (I guess it won't be complicated).  It is
> > easy to review (and i.e. can be merged separately), and with it, you will
> > immediately have one way to support attestation.
> > 
> > 2) can be reviewed separately, perhaps with one additional Kconfig option (i.e.
> > CONFIG_INTEL_TDX_ATTESTATION_GET_QUOTE).  I think this part has most of the
> 
> 
> GetQuote IOCTL support is a very simple feature support, so, IMO, we
> don't need to complicate it with additional config.
> 
> > 

Additional Kconfig can reduce attack window by turning it off for people don't
need it.  Anyway no strong opinion here.

-- 
Thanks,
-Kai