linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 06/20] x86/virt/tdx: Shut down TDX module in case of error

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:39:58 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
        "imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 06/20] x86/virt/tdx: Shut down TDX module in case of
 error

On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 19:31 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:06:25PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 22 2022 at 10:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 01:26:28PM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Shutting down the TDX module requires calling TDH.SYS.LP.SHUTDOWN on all
> > > > > BIOS-enabled CPUs, and the SEMACALL can run concurrently on different
> > > > > CPUs.  Implement a mechanism to run SEAMCALL concurrently on all online
> > > > > CPUs and use it to shut down the module.  Later logical-cpu scope module
> > > > > initialization will use it too.
> > > > 
> > > > Uhh, those requirements ^ are not met by this:
> > > 
> > >   Can run concurrently != Must run concurrently
> > >  
> > > The documentation clearly says "can run concurrently" as quoted above.
> > 
> > The next sentense says: "Implement a mechanism to run SEAMCALL
> > concurrently" -- it does not.
> > 
> > Anyway, since we're all in agreement there is no such requirement at
> > all, a schedule_on_each_cpu() might be more appropriate, there is no
> > reason to use IPIs and spin-waiting for any of this.
> 
> Backing up a bit, what's the reason for _any_ of this?  The changelog says
> 
>   It's pointless to leave the TDX module in some middle state.
> 
> but IMO it's just as pointless to do a shutdown unless the kernel benefits in
> some meaningful way.  And IIUC, TDH.SYS.LP.SHUTDOWN does nothing more than change
> the SEAM VMCS.HOST_RIP to point to an error trampoline.  E.g. it's not like doing
> a shutdown lets the kernel reclaim memory that was gifted to the TDX module.

The metadata memory has been freed back to the kernel in case of error before
shutting down the module.

> 
> In other words, this is just a really expensive way of changing a function pointer,
> and the only way it would ever benefit the kernel is if there is a kernel bug that
> leads to trying to use TDX after a fatal error.  And even then, the only difference
> seems to be that subsequent bogus SEAMCALLs would get a more unique error message.

The only issue of leaving module open is like you said bogus SEAMCALLs can still
be made.  There's a slight risk that those SEAMCALLs may actually be able to do
something that may crash the kernel (i.e. if the module is shut down due to
TDH.SYS.INIT.TDMR error, then further bogus TDH.SYS.INIT.TDMR can still corrupt
the metadata).

But, this belongs to "kernel bug" or "kernel is under attack" category.  Neither
of them should be a concern of TDX: host kernel is out of TCB, and preventing
DoS attack is not part of TDX anyway.

Also, in case of kexec(), we cannot shut down the module either (in this
implementation, due to CPU may not be in VMX operation when kexec()).

So I agree with you, it's fine to not shut down the module.

Hi maintainers, does this look good to you?