linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v9 42/51] KVM: SVM: Support SEV-SNP AP Creation NAE event

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: <CAMkAt6r9noa7NCukf213cpmTOFgUSvowEOoGwRaGH+E4vxL20g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:00:45 -0600
From:   Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        jroedel@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com, hpa@...or.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, slp@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
        dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com, tobin@....com, bp@...en8.de,
        vbabka@...e.cz, kirill@...temov.name, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, alpergun@...gle.com,
        dgilbert@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org, ashish.kalra@....com,
        nikunj.dadhania@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com,
        zhi.a.wang@...el.com, Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 42/51] KVM: SVM: Support SEV-SNP AP Creation NAE event

> +
> +       switch (request) {
> +       case SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE_ON_INIT:
> +               kick = false;
> +               fallthrough;
> +       case SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_CREATE:
> +               if (!page_address_valid(vcpu, svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2)) {
> +                       vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "vmgexit: invalid AP VMSA address [%#llx] from guest\n",
> +                                   svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2);
> +                       ret = -EINVAL;
> +                       goto out;
> +               }
> +
> +               /*
> +                * Malicious guest can RMPADJUST a large page into VMSA which
> +                * will hit the SNP erratum where the CPU will incorrectly signal
> +                * an RMP violation #PF if a hugepage collides with the RMP entry
> +                * of VMSA page, reject the AP CREATE request if VMSA address from
> +                * guest is 2M aligned.
> +                */
> +               if (IS_ALIGNED(svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2, PMD_SIZE)) {
> +                       vcpu_unimpl(vcpu,
> +                                   "vmgexit: AP VMSA address [%llx] from guest is unsafe as it is 2M aligned\n",
> +                                   svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2);

In this case and maybe the above case can we instead return an error
to the guest instead of a #GP?

I think Tom suggested: SW_EXITINFO1[31:0] to 2 (meaning there was an
error with the VMGEXIT request) and SW_EXITINFO2 to 5 (The NAE event
input was not valid (e.g., an invalid SW_EXITINFO1 value for the AP
Jump Table NAE event).

This way a non-malicious but buggy or naive guest gets a little more
information and a chance to retry the request?

> +                       ret = -EINVAL;
> +                       goto out;
> +               }
> +
> +               target_svm->sev_es.snp_vmsa_gpa = svm->vmcb->control.exit_info_2;
> +               break;
> +       case SVM_VMGEXIT_AP_DESTROY:
> +               break;
> +       default:
> +               vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "vmgexit: invalid AP creation request [%#x] from guest\n",
> +                           request);
> +               ret = -EINVAL;
> +               break;
> +       }
> +