linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kernel: skip ROM range scans and validation for SEV-SNP guests

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: <CAGdbjm+RMy6M=_PRg_L70g+EZ1FXi0BVub60KT4-GHuv6wLa2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:52:14 -0500
From: Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, acdunlap@...gle.com, 
	alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, andrisaar@...gle.com, bhe@...hat.com, 
	brijesh.singh@....com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dionnaglaze@...gle.com, 
	grobler@...gle.com, hpa@...or.com, jacobhxu@...gle.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org, 
	kai.huang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, michael.roth@....com, 
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, pgonda@...gle.com, 
	ross.lagerwall@...rix.com, sidtelang@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, 
	thomas.lendacky@....com, x86@...nel.org, ytcoode@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kernel: skip ROM range scans and validation for
 SEV-SNP guests

On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 6:01 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 11:30:50AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Agree with the analysis and the conclusion. However, this will need to
> > be split into generic and x86 specific changes, given that the DMI
> > code is shared between all architectures, and explicitly checking for
> > SEV-SNP support in generic code is not appropriate.
> >
> > So what we will need is:
>
> I was actually thinking of:
>
>         x86_init.resources.probe_roms = snp_probe_roms;
>
> and snp_probe_roms() is an empty stub.
>
> Problem solved without ugly sprinkling of checks everywhere.

Agreed, this is nicer; we can just add dmi_setup to x86_init as well
to implement the same concept for all checks we need.