| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6rFO6J5heuwocmvb_wstOOwsf9WooXu9iEUOvK0wEDAhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 07:38:29 -0600
From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>
Cc: kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 08/10] KVM: selftests: Make ucall work with encrypted guests
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 9:43 AM Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 12:29:54PM -0700, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > Add support for encrypted, SEV, guests in the ucall framework. If
> > encryption is enabled set up a pool of ucall structs in the guests'
> > shared memory region. This was suggested in the thread on "[RFC PATCH
> > 00/10] KVM: selftests: Add support for test-selectable ucall
> > implementations". Using a listed as suggested there doesn't work well
>
> list
>
> > because the list is setup using HVAs not GVAs so use a bitmap + array
> > solution instead to get the same pool result.
> >
> > Suggested-by:Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
> >
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
> > .../selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h | 30 +++--
> > .../selftests/kvm/include/ucall_common.h | 14 +--
> > .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/ucall_common.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++--
> > .../testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/ucall.c | 2 +-
> > 5 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > index 61e85892dd9b..3d9f2a017389 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
> > @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ LIBKVM += lib/rbtree.c
> > LIBKVM += lib/sparsebit.c
> > LIBKVM += lib/test_util.c
> > LIBKVM += lib/ucall_common.c
> > +LIBKVM += $(top_srcdir)/tools/lib/find_bit.c
>
> Why is this file being added?
This is a mistake, I'll revert. I was originally trying to use
find_first_zero_bit().
>
> >
> > LIBKVM_x86_64 += lib/x86_64/apic.c
> > LIBKVM_x86_64 += lib/x86_64/handlers.S
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> > index 60b604ac9fa9..77aff2356d64 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util_base.h
> > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct userspace_mem_regions {
> > /* Memory encryption policy/configuration. */
> > struct vm_memcrypt {
> > bool enabled;
> > + bool encrypted;
> > int8_t enc_by_default;
> > bool has_enc_bit;
> > int8_t enc_bit;
> > @@ -99,6 +100,8 @@ struct kvm_vm {
> > int stats_fd;
> > struct kvm_stats_header stats_header;
> > struct kvm_stats_desc *stats_desc;
> > +
> > + struct list_head ucall_list;
> > };
> >
> >
> > @@ -141,21 +144,21 @@ enum vm_guest_mode {
> >
> > extern enum vm_guest_mode vm_mode_default;
> >
> > -#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT vm_mode_default
> > -#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > -#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
> > +#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT vm_mode_default
> > +#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > +#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
> >
> > #elif defined(__x86_64__)
> >
> > -#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K
> > -#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > -#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
> > +#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_PXXV48_4K
> > +#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > +#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
> >
> > #elif defined(__s390x__)
> >
> > -#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_P44V64_4K
> > -#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > -#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 16)
> > +#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_P44V64_4K
> > +#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > +#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 16)
> >
> > #elif defined(__riscv)
> >
> > @@ -163,9 +166,9 @@ extern enum vm_guest_mode vm_mode_default;
> > #error "RISC-V 32-bit kvm selftests not supported"
> > #endif
> >
> > -#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_P40V48_4K
> > -#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > -#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
> > +#define VM_MODE_DEFAULT VM_MODE_P40V48_4K
> > +#define MIN_PAGE_SHIFT 12U
> > +#define ptes_per_page(page_size) ((page_size) / 8)
>
> Looks like your editor decided to change all the above defines to use
> spaces instead of tabs. You might want to double check the other
> patches as well to ensure lines added use tabs vs. spaces and that
> there are no other random whitespace changes.
Will fix.
>
> >
> > #endif
> >
> > @@ -802,6 +805,9 @@ vm_paddr_t addr_arch_gva2gpa(struct kvm_vm *vm, vm_vaddr_t gva);
> >
> > static inline vm_paddr_t addr_gva2gpa(struct kvm_vm *vm, vm_vaddr_t gva)
> > {
> > + TEST_ASSERT(
> > + !vm->memcrypt.encrypted,
> > + "Encrypted guests have their page tables encrypted so gva2* conversions are not possible.");
> > return addr_arch_gva2gpa(vm, gva);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/ucall_common.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/ucall_common.h
> > index cb9b37282701..d8ac16a68c0a 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/ucall_common.h
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/ucall_common.h
> > @@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ enum {
> > struct ucall {
> > uint64_t cmd;
> > uint64_t args[UCALL_MAX_ARGS];
> > +
> > + /* For encrypted guests. */
> > + uint64_t idx;
> > + struct ucall *hva;
> > };
> >
> > void ucall_arch_init(struct kvm_vm *vm, void *arg);
> > @@ -31,15 +35,9 @@ void *ucall_arch_get_ucall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > void ucall(uint64_t cmd, int nargs, ...);
> > uint64_t get_ucall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct ucall *uc);
> >
> > -static inline void ucall_init(struct kvm_vm *vm, void *arg)
> > -{
> > - ucall_arch_init(vm, arg);
> > -}
> > +void ucall_init(struct kvm_vm *vm, void *arg);
> >
> > -static inline void ucall_uninit(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > -{
> > - ucall_arch_uninit(vm);
> > -}
> > +void ucall_uninit(struct kvm_vm *vm);
> >
> > #define GUEST_SYNC_ARGS(stage, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4) \
> > ucall(UCALL_SYNC, 6, "hello", stage, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4)
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/ucall_common.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/ucall_common.c
> > index c488ed23d0dd..8e660b10f9b2 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/ucall_common.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/ucall_common.c
> > @@ -1,22 +1,123 @@
> > // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > #include "kvm_util.h"
> > +#include "linux/types.h"
> > +#include "linux/bitmap.h"
> > +#include "linux/bitops.h"
> > +#include "linux/atomic.h"
>
> Do we really need bitmap.h, bitops.h, and atomic.h? I see we use
> clear_bit(), which I think is from atomic.h, and
> atomic_test_and_set_bit(), which I have no idea where it comes from...
I added that function to atomic.h in "RFC V1 07/10] tools: Add
atomic_test_and_set_bit()". You are right, I should revert the other
header additions.
>
> > +
> > +struct ucall_header {
> > + DECLARE_BITMAP(in_use, KVM_MAX_VCPUS);
> > + struct ucall ucalls[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
> > +};
> > +
> > +static bool encrypted_guest;
> > +static struct ucall_header *ucall_hdr;
> > +
> > +void ucall_init(struct kvm_vm *vm, void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct ucall *uc;
> > + struct ucall_header *hdr;
> > + vm_vaddr_t vaddr;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + encrypted_guest = vm->memcrypt.enabled;
> > + sync_global_to_guest(vm, encrypted_guest);
> > + if (!encrypted_guest)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + TEST_ASSERT(!ucall_hdr,
> > + "Only a single encrypted guest at a time for ucalls.");
> > + vaddr = vm_vaddr_alloc_shared(vm, sizeof(*hdr), vm->page_size);
> > + hdr = (struct ucall_header *)addr_gva2hva(vm, vaddr);
> > + memset(hdr, 0, sizeof(*hdr));
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
> > + uc = &hdr->ucalls[i];
> > + uc->hva = uc;
> > + uc->idx = i;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ucall_hdr = (struct ucall_header *)vaddr;
> > + sync_global_to_guest(vm, ucall_hdr);
> > +
> > +out:
> > + ucall_arch_init(vm, arg);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void ucall_uninit(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > +{
> > + encrypted_guest = false;
> > + ucall_hdr = NULL;
> > +
> > + ucall_arch_uninit(vm);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct ucall *ucall_alloc(void)
> > +{
> > + struct ucall *uc = NULL;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + if (!encrypted_guest)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
> > + if (atomic_test_and_set_bit(i, ucall_hdr->in_use))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + uc = &ucall_hdr->ucalls[i];
>
> Doesn't this just mark all buffers as in-use and return the last one?
> I think we want
>
> for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
> if (!atomic_test_and_set_bit(i, ucall_hdr->in_use)) {
> uc = &ucall_hdr->ucalls[i];
> break;
> }
> }
Yes, that looks correct. I'll update this.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > +out:
> > + return uc;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ucall_free(struct ucall *uc)
> > +{
> > + if (!encrypted_guest)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + clear_bit(uc->idx, ucall_hdr->in_use);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static vm_vaddr_t get_ucall_addr(struct ucall *uc)
> > +{
> > + if (encrypted_guest)
> > + return (vm_vaddr_t)uc->hva;
> > +
> > + return (vm_vaddr_t)uc;
> > +}
> >
> > void ucall(uint64_t cmd, int nargs, ...)
> > {
> > - struct ucall uc = {
> > - .cmd = cmd,
> > - };
> > + struct ucall *uc;
> > + struct ucall tmp;
> > va_list va;
> > int i;
> >
> > + uc = ucall_alloc();
> > + if (!uc)
> > + uc = &tmp;
> > +
> > + uc->cmd = cmd;
> > +
> > nargs = min(nargs, UCALL_MAX_ARGS);
> >
> > va_start(va, nargs);
> > for (i = 0; i < nargs; ++i)
> > - uc.args[i] = va_arg(va, uint64_t);
> > + uc->args[i] = va_arg(va, uint64_t);
> > va_end(va);
> >
> > - ucall_arch_do_ucall((vm_vaddr_t)&uc);
> > + ucall_arch_do_ucall(get_ucall_addr(uc));
> > +
> > + ucall_free(uc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void *get_ucall_hva(struct kvm_vm *vm, void *uc)
> > +{
> > + if (encrypted_guest)
> > + return uc;
> > +
> > + return addr_gva2hva(vm, (vm_vaddr_t)uc);
> > }
> >
> > uint64_t get_ucall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct ucall *uc)
> > @@ -27,9 +128,9 @@ uint64_t get_ucall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct ucall *uc)
> > if (!uc)
> > uc = &ucall;
> >
> > - addr = ucall_arch_get_ucall(vcpu);
> > + addr = get_ucall_hva(vcpu->vm, ucall_arch_get_ucall(vcpu));
>
> Hmm... so now it's expected that ucall_arch_get_ucall() returns a gva...
>
> > if (addr) {
> > - memcpy(uc, addr, sizeof(*uc));
> > + memcpy(uc, addr, sizeof(struct ucall));
>
> Why make this change?
I'll revert this.
>
> > vcpu_run_complete_io(vcpu);
> > } else {
> > memset(uc, 0, sizeof(*uc));
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/ucall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/ucall.c
> > index ec53a406f689..ea6b2e3a8e39 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/ucall.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/ucall.c
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ void *ucall_arch_get_ucall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > struct kvm_regs regs;
> >
> > vcpu_regs_get(vcpu, ®s);
> > - return addr_gva2hva(vcpu->vm, (vm_vaddr_t)regs.rdi);
> > + return (void *)regs.rdi;
>
> ...we're only updating x86's ucall_arch_get_ucall() to return gvas.
> What about the other architectures? Anyway, I'd rather we don't
> change ucall_arch_get_ucall() to return gvas. They should continue
> returning hvas and any trickery needed to translate a pool uc to
> an hva should be put inside ucall_arch_get_ucall().
Makes sense. I'll maintain returning HVAs in both cases and let the
_arch_ calls handle the translations.
>
> > }
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.37.0.170.g444d1eabd0-goog
> >
>
> I'm not a big fan of mixing the concept of encrypted guests into ucalls. I
> think we should have two types of ucalls, those have a uc pool in memory
> shared with the host and those that don't. Encrypted guests pick the pool
> version.
Sean suggested this version where encrypted guests and normal guests
used the same ucall macros/functions. I am fine with adding a second
interface for encrypted VM ucall, do you think macros like
ENCRYPTED_GUEST_SYNC, ENCRYPTED_GUEST_ASSERT, and
get_encrypted_ucall() ?
>
> Thanks,
> drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists