[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMkAt6r8ocB2b0gympDCX3zQCOOow=N+fGtD0s5jyP3ayt2-Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:57:09 -0700
From: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Haowen Bai <baihaowen@...zu.com>,
Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>,
Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] virt: sev: Prevent IV reuse in SNP guest driver
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:28 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > I think another comment above the first snp_issue_guest_request()
> > could help too. Saying once we call this function we either need to
> > increment the sequence number or wipe the VMPCK to ensure the
> > encryption scheme is safe.
>
> And make that explicit pls:
>
> /*
> * If the extended guest request fails due to having to small of a
> * certificate data buffer retry the same guest request without the
> * extended data request...
>
> ... in order to not have to reuse the IV.
>
>
> I have to admit, the flow in that function is still not optimal but I
> haven't stared at it long enough to have a better idea...
Thanks for all the feedback Tom and Boris. I've sent out a V5. I hope
I've gotten the grammar correct in these comments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists