linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] x86/tdx: Extend TDX_MODULE_CALL to support more TDCALL/SEAMCALL leafs

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:   Thu, 13 Jul 2023 10:01:30 +0000
From:   "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] x86/tdx: Extend TDX_MODULE_CALL to support more
 TDCALL/SEAMCALL leafs

On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 11:25 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:15:49AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 11:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:09:33AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2023-07-12 at 19:11 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 08:55:21PM +1200, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -65,6 +104,37 @@
> > > > > >  	.endif
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  	.if \ret
> > > > > > +	.if \saved
> > > > > > +	/*
> > > > > > +	 * Restore the structure from stack to saved the output registers
> > > > > > +	 *
> > > > > > +	 * In case of VP.ENTER returns due to TDVMCALL, all registers are
> > > > > > +	 * valid thus no register can be used as spare to restore the
> > > > > > +	 * structure from the stack (see "TDH.VP.ENTER Output Operands
> > > > > > +	 * Definition on TDCALL(TDG.VP.VMCALL) Following a TD Entry").
> > > > > > +	 * For this case, need to make one register as spare by saving it
> > > > > > +	 * to the stack and then manually load the structure pointer to
> > > > > > +	 * the spare register.
> > > > > > +	 *
> > > > > > +	 * Note for other TDCALLs/SEAMCALLs there are spare registers
> > > > > > +	 * thus no need for such hack but just use this for all for now.
> > > > > > +	 */
> > > > > > +	pushq	%rax		/* save the TDCALL/SEAMCALL return code */
> > > > > > +	movq	8(%rsp), %rax	/* restore the structure pointer */
> > > > > > +	movq	%rsi, TDX_MODULE_rsi(%rax)	/* save %rsi */
> > > > > > +	movq	%rax, %rsi	/* use %rsi as structure pointer */
> > > > > > +	popq	%rax		/* restore the return code */
> > > > > > +	popq	%rsi		/* pop the structure pointer */
> > > > > 
> > > > > Urgghh... At least for the \host case you can simply pop %rsi, no?
> > > > > VP.ENTER returns with 0 there IIRC.
> > > > 
> > > > No VP.ENTER doesn't return 0 for RAX.  Firstly, VP.ENTER can return for many
> > > 
> > > No, but it *does* return 0 for: RBX,RSI,RDI,R10-R15.
> > > 
> > > So for \host you can simply do:
> > > 
> > > 	pop	%rsi
> > > 	mov	$0, TDX_MODULE_rsi(%rsi)
> > > 
> > > and call it a day.
> > 
> > This isn't true for the case that VP.ENTER returns due to a TDVMCALL.  In that
> > case RCX contains the bitmap of shared registers, and RBX/RDX/RDI/RSI/R8-R15
> > contains guest value if the corresponding bit is set in RCX (RBP will be
> > excluded by updating the spec I assume).
> > 
> > Or are you suggesting we need to decode RAX to decide whether the VP.ENTER
> > return is due to TDVMCALL vs other reasons, and act differently?
> 
> Urgh, no I had missed there are *TWO* tables for output :/ Who does
> something like that :-(
> 
> So yeah, sucks.

Yeah.  I think for code simplicity we should just do the way the current patch
has implemented :-)