linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] x86/boot: Delay sev_verify

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]

Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:43:50 +0100
From:   Jörg Rödel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Joan Bruguera <joanbrugueram@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] x86/boot: Delay sev_verify_cbit() a bit

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 02:18:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> So, can we do that C-bit verification once on the BSP, *in C* which would be a
> lot easier, and be done with it?
> 
> Once it is verified there, the bit is the same on all APs so all good.

Yes, I think this is safe to do. The page-table the APs will use to boot
already has the correct C-bit set, and the position is verified on the
BSP. Further, the C-bit position is a hardware capability and there is
no chance the APs will have it at a different position than the BSP.

Even if the HV is lying to the VM by faking CPUID on the APs it wouldn't
matter, because the position is not read again on the APs.

Regards,

	Joerg