linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 09/29] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add report_fatal

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: <ZhkhvtijbhxKKAEk@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:57:50 +0800
From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
To: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>
CC: <sagis@...gle.com>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
	<afranji@...gle.com>, <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	<seanjc@...gle.com>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <shuah@...nel.org>,
	<pgonda@...gle.com>, <haibo1.xu@...el.com>, <chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com>,
	<vannapurve@...gle.com>, <runanwang@...gle.com>, <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
	<jmattson@...gle.com>, <dmatlack@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 09/29] KVM: selftests: TDX: Add report_fatal_error
 test

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 04:56:36AM +0000, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com> writes:
> 
> > ...
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/tdx/test_util.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/tdx/test_util.h
> >> index b570b6d978ff..6d69921136bd 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/tdx/test_util.h
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/x86_64/tdx/test_util.h
> >> @@ -49,4 +49,23 @@ bool is_tdx_enabled(void);
> >>   */
> >>  void tdx_test_success(void);
> >>  
> >> +/**
> >> + * Report an error with @error_code to userspace.
> >> + *
> >> + * Return value from tdg_vp_vmcall_report_fatal_error is ignored since execution
> >> + * is not expected to continue beyond this point.
> >> + */
> >> +void tdx_test_fatal(uint64_t error_code);
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * Report an error with @error_code to userspace.
> >> + *
> >> + * @data_gpa may point to an optional shared guest memory holding the error
> >> + * string.
> >> + *
> >> + * Return value from tdg_vp_vmcall_report_fatal_error is ignored since execution
> >> + * is not expected to continue beyond this point.
> >> + */
> >> +void tdx_test_fatal_with_data(uint64_t error_code, uint64_t data_gpa);
> > I found nowhere is using "data_gpa" as a gpa, even in patch 23, it's
> > usage is to pass a line number ("tdx_test_fatal_with_data(ret, __LINE__)").
> >
> >
> 
> This function tdx_test_fatal_with_data() is meant to provide a generic
> interface for TDX tests to use TDG.VP.VMCALL<ReportFatalError>, and so
> the parameters of tdx_test_fatal_with_data() generically allow error_code and
> data_gpa to be specified.
> 
> The tests just happen to use the data_gpa parameter to pass __LINE__ to
> the host VMM, but other tests in future that use the
> tdx_test_fatal_with_data() function in the TDX testing library could
> actually pass a GPA through using data_gpa.
> 
> >>  #endif // SELFTEST_TDX_TEST_UTIL_H
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/tdx/tdx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/tdx/tdx.c
> >> index c2414523487a..b854c3aa34ff 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/tdx/tdx.c
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/x86_64/tdx/tdx.c
> >> @@ -1,8 +1,31 @@
> >>  // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >>  
> >> +#include <string.h>
> >> +
> >>  #include "tdx/tdcall.h"
> >>  #include "tdx/tdx.h"
> >>  
> >> +void handle_userspace_tdg_vp_vmcall_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct kvm_tdx_vmcall *vmcall_info = &vcpu->run->tdx.u.vmcall;
> >> +	uint64_t vmcall_subfunction = vmcall_info->subfunction;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (vmcall_subfunction) {
> >> +	case TDG_VP_VMCALL_REPORT_FATAL_ERROR:
> >> +		vcpu->run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT;
> >> +		vcpu->run->system_event.ndata = 3;
> >> +		vcpu->run->system_event.data[0] =
> >> +			TDG_VP_VMCALL_REPORT_FATAL_ERROR;
> >> +		vcpu->run->system_event.data[1] = vmcall_info->in_r12;
> >> +		vcpu->run->system_event.data[2] = vmcall_info->in_r13;
> >> +		vmcall_info->status_code = 0;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	default:
> >> +		TEST_FAIL("TD VMCALL subfunction %lu is unsupported.\n",
> >> +			  vmcall_subfunction);
> >> +	}
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  uint64_t tdg_vp_vmcall_instruction_io(uint64_t port, uint64_t size,
> >>  				      uint64_t write, uint64_t *data)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -25,3 +48,19 @@ uint64_t tdg_vp_vmcall_instruction_io(uint64_t port, uint64_t size,
> >>  
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> >> +
> >> +void tdg_vp_vmcall_report_fatal_error(uint64_t error_code, uint64_t data_gpa)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct tdx_hypercall_args args;
> >> +
> >> +	memset(&args, 0, sizeof(struct tdx_hypercall_args));
> >> +
> >> +	if (data_gpa)
> >> +		error_code |= 0x8000000000000000;
> >> 
> > So, why this error_code needs to set bit 63?
> >
> >
> 
> The Intel GHCI Spec says in R12, bit 63 is set if the GPA is valid. As a
But above "__LINE__" is obviously not a valid GPA.

Do you think it's better to check "data_gpa" is with shared bit on and
aligned in 4K before setting bit 63?

> generic TDX testing library function, this check allows the user to use
> tdg_vp_vmcall_report_fatal_error() with error_code and data_gpa and not
> worry about setting bit 63 before calling
> tdg_vp_vmcall_report_fatal_error(), though if the user set bit 63 before
> that, there is no issue.
> 
> >> +	args.r11 = TDG_VP_VMCALL_REPORT_FATAL_ERROR;
> >> +	args.r12 = error_code;
> >> +	args.r13 = data_gpa;
> >> +
> >> +	__tdx_hypercall(&args, 0);
> >> +}
> 
> >> <snip>
>