linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Check cc_vendor when printing memory encryption info

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, 22 Nov 2023 18:09:16 +0100
From:   Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        stefan.bader@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
        roxana.nicolescu@...onical.com, cascardo@...onical.com,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, sashal@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Check cc_vendor when printing memory encryption
 info

On 10/11/2023 17:45, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 04:51:43PM +0100, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
>> What's semi-correct about checking for CC_VENDOR_INTEL and then
>> printing Intel?  I can post a v2 that checks CC_ATTR_GUEST_MEM_ENCRYPT
>> before printing "TDX".
> 
> How is it that you're not seeing the conflict:
> 
> Your TD partitioning guest *is* a TDX guest so X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST
> should be set there. But it isn't. Which means, that is already wrong.
> Or insufficient.
> 
> 	 if (cc_vendor == CC_VENDOR_INTEL)
> 
> just *happens* to work for your case.
> 
> What the detection code should do, rather, is:
> 
> 	if (guest type == TD partioning)
> 		set bla;
> 	else if (TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID)
> 		"normal" TDX guest;
> 
> and those rules need to be spelled out so that everyone is on the same
> page as to how a TD partitioning guest is detected, how a normal TDX
> guest is detected, a SEV-ES, a SNP one, yadda yadda.
> 
>> The paravisor *is* telling the guest it is running on one - using a CPUID leaf
>> (HYPERV_CPUID_ISOLATION_CONFIG). A paravisor is a hypervisor for a confidential
>> guest, that's why paravisor detection shares logic with hypervisor detection.
>>
>> tdx_early_init() runs extremely early, way before hypervisor(/paravisor) detection.
> 
> What?
> 
> Why can't tdx_early_init() run CPUID(HYPERV_CPUID_ISOLATION_CONFIG) if
> it can't find a valid TDX_CPUID_LEAF_ID and set X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST
> then?

I guess it can if no one has an issue with it.

Thank you for the review, I've posted a patchset that implements this idea here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231122170106.270266-1-jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com/T/#u

> 
>> Additionally we'd need to sprinkle paravisor checks along with
>> existing X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST checks. And any time someone adds a new
>> feature that depends solely on X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST we'd run the
>> chance of it breaking things.
> 
> Well, before anything, you'd need to define what exactly the guest kernel
> needs to do when running as a TD partitioning guest and how exactly that
> is going to be detected and checked using the current cc_* and
> cpufeatures infra. If it doesn't work with the current scheme, then the
> current scheme should be extended.
> 
> Then, that should be properly written out:
> 
> "if bit X is set, then that is a guest type Y"
> "if feature foo present, then so and so are given"
> 
> If the current guest type detection is insufficient, then that should be
> extended/amended.
> 
> That's the only viable way where the kernel would support properly and
> reliably a given guest type. There'll be no sprinkling of checks
> anywhere.
> 
> Thx.
> 

OK. In the new submission I've added CC_ATTR_TDX_MODULE_CALLS because that
is what we really need to guard against, and these guests can then have
X86_FEATURE_TDX_GUEST set normally.

Jeremi