linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH V6 02/14] x86/sev: Add Check of #HV event in path

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]

Message-ID: <BYAPR21MB16882587522915C96A72413ED748A@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 15:58:53 +0000
From:   "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Tianyu Lan <ltykernel@...il.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        "kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "jiangshan.ljs@...group.com" <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>,
        "ashish.kalra@....com" <ashish.kalra@....com>,
        "srutherford@...gle.com" <srutherford@...gle.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "anshuman.khandual@....com" <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        "pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        "adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com" <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>,
        "ray.huang@....com" <ray.huang@....com>,
        "brijesh.singh@....com" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        "michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "venu.busireddy@...cle.com" <venu.busireddy@...cle.com>,
        "sterritt@...gle.com" <sterritt@...gle.com>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "samitolvanen@...gle.com" <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        "fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "pangupta@....com" <pangupta@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH V6 02/14] x86/sev: Add Check of #HV event in path

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:49 AM
> 
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 02:50:50PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> 
> > I'm jumping in to answer some of the basic questions here.  Yesterday,
> > there was a discussion about nested #HV exceptions, so maybe some of
> > this is already understood, but let me recap at a higher level, provide some
> > references, and suggest the path forward.
> 
> > 2) For the Restricted Interrupt Injection code, Tianyu will look at
> > how to absolutely minimize the impact in the hot code paths,
> > particularly when SEV-SNP is not active.  Hopefully the impact can
> > be a couple of instructions at most, or even less with the use of
> > other existing kernel techniques.  He'll look at the other things you've
> > commented on and get the code into a better state.  I'll work with
> > him on writing commit messages and comments that explain what's
> > going on.
> 
> So from what I understand of all this SEV-SNP/#HV muck is that it is
> near impossible to get right without ucode/hw changes. Hence my request
> to Tom to look into that.
> 
> The feature as specified in the AMD documentation seems fundamentally
> buggered.
> 
> Specifically #HV needs to be IST because hypervisor can inject at any
> moment, irrespective of IF or anything else -- even #HV itself. This
> means also in the syscall gap.
> 
> Since it is IST, a nested #HV is instant stack corruption -- #HV can
> attempt to play stack games as per the copied #VC crap (which I'm not at
> all convinced about being correct itself), but this doesn't actually fix
> anything, all you need is a single instruction window to wreck things.
> 
> Because as stated, the whole premise is that the hypervisor is out to
> get you, you must not leave it room to wiggle. As is, this is security
> through prayer, and we don't do that.
> 
> In short; I really want a solid proof that what you propose to implement
> is correct and not wishful thinking.

Fair enough.  We will be sync'ing with the AMD folks to make sure that
one way or another this really will work.

Michael