linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 18/35] KVM: SEV: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH

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: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:03:13 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, 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, 
	vkuznets@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, slp@...hat.com, pgonda@...gle.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, 
	sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, alpergun@...gle.com, 
	jarkko@...nel.org, ashish.kalra@....com, nikunj.dadhania@....com, 
	pankaj.gupta@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com, zhi.a.wang@...el.com, 
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 18/35] KVM: SEV: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE command

On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:43 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > Userspace owns whether a page is PRIVATE or SHARED, full stop.  If KVM can't
> > > honor that, then we need to come up with better uAPI.
> >
> > Can you explain more verbosely what you mean?
>
> As proposed, snp_launch_update_gfn_handler() doesn't verify the state of the
> gfns' attributes.  But that's a minor problem and probably not a sticking point.
>
> My overarching complaint is that the code is to be wildly unsafe, or at the very
> least brittle.  Without guest_memfd's knowledge, and without holding any locks
> beyond kvm->lock, it
>
>  1) checks if a pfn is shared in the RMP
>  2) copies data to the page
>  3) converts the page to private in the RMP
>  4) does PSP stuff
>  5) on failure, converts the page back to shared in RMP
>  6) conditionally on failure, writes to the page via a gfn
>
> I'm not at all confident that 1-4 isn't riddled with TOCTOU bugs, and that's
> before KVM gains support for intrahost migration, i.e. before KVM allows multiple
> VM instances to bind to a single guest_memfd.

Absolutely.

> But I _think_ we mostly sorted this out at PUCK.  IIRC, the plan is to have guest_memfd
> provide (kernel) APIs to allow arch/vendor code to initialize a guest_memfd range.
> That will give guest_memfd complete control over the state of a given page, will
> allow guest_memfd to take the appropriate locks, and if we're lucky, will be reusable
> by other CoCo flavors beyond SNP.

Ok, either way it's clear that guest_memfd needs to be in charge.
Whether it's MEMORY_ENCRYPT_OP that calls into guest_memfd or vice
versa, that only matters so much.

> > > Yes, I am specifically complaining about writing guest memory on failure, which is
> > > all kinds of weird.
> >
> > It is weird but I am not sure if you are complaining about firmware
> > behavior or something else.
>
> This proposed KVM code:
>
> +                               host_rmp_make_shared(pfns[i], PG_LEVEL_4K, true);
> +
> +                               ret = kvm_write_guest_page(kvm, gfn, kvaddr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> +                               if (ret)
> +                                       pr_err("Failed to write CPUID page back to userspace, ret: 0x%x\n",
> +                                              ret);
>
>
> I have no objection to propagating error/debug information back to userspace,
> but it needs to be routed through the source page (or I suppose some dedicated
> error page, but that seems like overkill).  Shoving the error information into
> guest memory is gross.

Yes, but it should be just a consequence of not actually using
start_gfn. Having to copy back remains weird, but what can you do.

Paolo