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: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:09:55 -0600 From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com> To: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] x86/sev: Change snp_guest_issue_request's fw_err On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 4:47 PM Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com> wrote: > > The GHCB specification declares that the firmware error value for a > guest request will be stored in the lower 32 bits of EXIT_INFO_2. > The upper 32 bits are for the VMM's own error code. The fw_err argument > is thus a misnomer, and callers will need access to all 64 bits. > > The type of unsigned long also causes problems, since sw_exit_info2 is > u64 (unsigned long long) vs the argument's previous unsigned long*. > The signature change requires the follow-up change to > drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest to use the new expected type in order to > compile. > > The firmware might not even be called, so we bookend the call with the > no firmware call error and clearing the error. > > Cc: Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> > Cc: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de> > Cc: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> > > Fixes: d5af44dde546 ("x86/sev: Provide support for SNP guest request NAEs") > Signed-off-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h | 4 ++-- > arch/x86/kernel/sev.c | 10 ++++++---- > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h > index ebc271bb6d8e..8ebd78b6a57c 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h > @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ void snp_set_memory_private(unsigned long vaddr, unsigned int npages); > void snp_set_wakeup_secondary_cpu(void); > bool snp_init(struct boot_params *bp); > void __init __noreturn snp_abort(void); > -int snp_issue_guest_request(u64 exit_code, struct snp_req_data *input, unsigned long *fw_err); > +int snp_issue_guest_request(u64 exit_code, struct snp_req_data *input, u64 *exitinfo2); > #else > static inline void sev_es_ist_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) { } > static inline void sev_es_ist_exit(void) { } > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static inline void snp_set_wakeup_secondary_cpu(void) { } > static inline bool snp_init(struct boot_params *bp) { return false; } > static inline void snp_abort(void) { } > static inline int snp_issue_guest_request(u64 exit_code, struct snp_req_data *input, > - unsigned long *fw_err) > + u64 *exitinfo2) > { > return -ENOTTY; > } In another thread Borislav suggested we edit snp_issue_guest_request() to take a parameter struct pointer instead of a long list of args. Should we use the opportunity to do this instead of making this list longer?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists