linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v19 023/130] KVM: TDX: Initialize the TDX module when loading the KVM intel kernel module

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: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:58:41 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, Tina Zhang <tina.zhang@...el.com>, 
	Hang Yuan <hang.yuan@...el.com>, Bo Chen <chen.bo@...el.com>, 
	"sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, 
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	"isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com" <isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 023/130] KVM: TDX: Initialize the TDX module when
 loading the KVM intel kernel module

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> On 12/04/2024 2:03 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > I can certainly follow up with this and generate a reviewable patchset if I
> > > can confirm with you that this is what you want?
> > 
> > Yes, I think it's the right direction.  I still have minor concerns about VMX
> > being enabled while kvm.ko is loaded, which means that VMXON will _always_ be
> > enabled if KVM is built-in.  But after seeing the complexity that is needed to
> > safely initialize TDX, and after seeing just how much complexity KVM already
> > has because it enables VMX on-demand (I hadn't actually tried removing that code
> > before), I think the cost of that complexity far outweighs the risk of "always"
> > being post-VMXON.
> 
> Does always leaving VMXON have any actual damage, given we have emergency
> virtualization shutdown?

Being post-VMXON increases the risk of kexec() into the kdump kernel failing.
The tradeoffs that we're trying to balance are: is the risk of kexec() failing
due to the complexity of the emergency VMX code higher than the risk of us breaking
things in general due to taking on a ton of complexity to juggle VMXON for TDX?

After seeing the latest round of TDX code, my opinion is that being post-VMXON
is less risky overall, in no small part because we need that to work anyways for
hosts that are actively running VMs.

> > Within reason, I recommend getting feedback from others before you spend _too_
> > much time on this.  It's entirely possible I'm missing/forgetting some other angle.
> 
> Sure.  Could you suggest who should we try to get feedback from?
> 
> Perhaps you can just help to Cc them?

I didn't have anyone in particular in mind, I just really want *someone* to weigh
in as a sanity check.