linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/22] cc_platform: Add new attribute to prevent ACPI CPU hotplug

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: <baaae4b3-7f7d-b193-3546-70170b8b460d@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:46:09 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
        isaku.yamahata@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, Jason@...c4.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com, frederic@...nel.org,
        yuehaibing@...wei.com, dongli.zhang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/22] cc_platform: Add new attribute to prevent ACPI
 CPU hotplug

On 7/13/22 04:09, Kai Huang wrote:
...
> "TDX doesn’t support adding or removing CPUs from TDX security perimeter. The
> BIOS should prevent CPUs from being hot-added or hot-removed after platform
> boots."

That's a start.  It also probably needs to say that the security
perimeter includes all logical CPUs, though.

>  static int acpi_map_cpu2node(acpi_handle handle, int cpu, int physid)
>  {
> @@ -819,6 +820,12 @@ int acpi_map_cpu(acpi_handle handle, phys_cpuid_t physid,
> u32 acpi_id,
>  {
>         int cpu;
>  
> +       if (platform_tdx_enabled()) {
> +               pr_err("BIOS bug: CPU (physid %u) hot-added on TDX enabled
> platform. Reject it.\n",
> +                               physid);
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +       }

Is this the right place?  There are other sanity checks in
acpi_processor_hotadd_init() and it seems like a better spot.

>         cpu = acpi_register_lapic(physid, acpi_id, ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>         if (cpu < 0) {
>                 pr_info("Unable to map lapic to logical cpu number\n");
> @@ -835,6 +842,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_map_cpu);
>  
>  int acpi_unmap_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
> +       if (platform_tdx_enabled())
> +               pr_err("BIOS bug: CPU %d hot-removed on TDX enabled platform.
> TDX is broken. Please reboot the machine.\n",
> +                               cpu);
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
>         set_apicid_to_node(per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_apicid, cpu), NUMA_NO_NODE);
>  #endif