| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 22:04:43 +1200
From: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
isaku.yamahata@...el.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Yue Haibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, dongli.zhang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/22] cc_platform: Add new attribute to prevent ACPI
CPU hotplug
On Mon, 2022-06-27 at 10:01 +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:01:48 +1200
> Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 13:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 1:16 PM Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Platforms with confidential computing technology may not support ACPI
> > > > CPU hotplug when such technology is enabled by the BIOS. Examples
> > > > include Intel platforms which support Intel Trust Domain Extensions
> > > > (TDX).
> > > >
> > > > If the kernel ever receives ACPI CPU hotplug event, it is likely a BIOS
> > > > bug. For ACPI CPU hot-add, the kernel should speak out this is a BIOS
> > > > bug and reject the new CPU. For hot-removal, for simplicity just assume
> > > > the kernel cannot continue to work normally, and BUG().
> > > >
> > > > Add a new attribute CC_ATTR_ACPI_CPU_HOTPLUG_DISABLED to indicate the
> > > > platform doesn't support ACPI CPU hotplug, so that kernel can handle
> > > > ACPI CPU hotplug events for such platform. The existing attribute
> > > > CC_ATTR_HOTPLUG_DISABLED is for software CPU hotplug thus doesn't fit.
> > > >
> > > > In acpi_processor_{add|remove}(), add early check against this attribute
> > > > and handle accordingly if it is set.
> > > >
> > > > Also take this chance to rename existing CC_ATTR_HOTPLUG_DISABLED to
> > > > CC_ATTR_CPU_HOTPLUG_DISABLED as it is for software CPU hotplug.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/coco/core.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/cc_platform.h | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > > kernel/cpu.c | 2 +-
> > > > 4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/core.c
> > > > index 4320fadae716..1bde1af75296 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/coco/core.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/coco/core.c
> > > > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ static bool intel_cc_platform_has(enum cc_attr attr)
> > > > {
> > > > switch (attr) {
> > > > case CC_ATTR_GUEST_UNROLL_STRING_IO:
> > > > - case CC_ATTR_HOTPLUG_DISABLED:
> > > > + case CC_ATTR_CPU_HOTPLUG_DISABLED:
> > > > case CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT:
> > > > case CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT:
> > > > return true;
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > index 6737b1cbf6d6..b960db864cd4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > #include <linux/pci.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/cc_platform.h>
> > > >
> > > > #include <acpi/processor.h>
> > > >
> > > > @@ -357,6 +358,17 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device,
> > > > struct device *dev;
> > > > int result = 0;
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If the confidential computing platform doesn't support ACPI
> > > > + * memory hotplug, the BIOS should never deliver such event to
> > > > + * the kernel. Report ACPI CPU hot-add as a BIOS bug and ignore
> > > > + * the new CPU.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_ACPI_CPU_HOTPLUG_DISABLED)) {
> > >
> > > This will affect initialization, not just hotplug AFAICS.
> > >
> > > You should reset the .hotplug.enabled flag in processor_handler to
> > > false instead.
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Thanks for the review. By "affect initialization" did you mean this
> > acpi_processor_add() is also called during kernel boot when any logical cpu is
> > brought up? Or do you mean ACPI CPU hotplug can also happen during kernel boot
> > (after acpi_processor_init())?
> >
> > I see acpi_processor_init() calls acpi_processor_check_duplicates() which calls
> > acpi_evaluate_object() but I don't know details of ACPI so I don't know whether
> > this would trigger acpi_processor_add().
> >
> > One thing is TDX doesn't support ACPI CPU hotplug is an architectural thing, so
> > it is illegal even if it happens during kernel boot. Dave's idea is the kernel
> > should speak out loudly if physical CPU hotplug indeed happened on (BIOS) TDX-
> > enabled platforms. Otherwise perhaps we can just give up initializing the ACPI
> > CPU hotplug in acpi_processor_init(), something like below?
>
> The thing is that by the time ACPI machinery kicks in, physical hotplug
> has already happened and in case of (kvm+qemu+ovmf hypervisor combo)
> firmware has already handled it somehow and handed it over to ACPI.
> If you say it's architectural thing then cpu hotplug is platform/firmware
> bug and should be disabled there instead of working around it in the kernel.
>
> Perhaps instead of 'preventing' hotplug, complain/panic and be done with it.
Hi Igor,
Thanks for feedback. Yes the current implementation actually reports CPU hot-
add as BIOS bug. I think I can report BIOS bug for hot-removal too. And
currently I actually used BUG() for the hot-removal case. For hot-add I didn't
use BUG() but rejected the new CPU as the latter is more conservative.
Hi Rafael,
I am not sure I got what you mean by "This will affect initialization, not just
hotplug AFAICS", could you elaborate a little bit? Thanks.
--
Thanks,
-Kai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists