linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 09/13] tsc: Use the GUEST_TSC

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: <4c58d1f7-1493-ea32-c598-29edaa62f5c0@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 09:33:02 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 pgonda@...gle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 09/13] tsc: Use the GUEST_TSC_FREQ MSR for discovering
 TSC frequency

On 10/21/24 00:51, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> Calibrating the TSC frequency using the kvmclock is not correct for
> SecureTSC enabled guests. Use the platform provided TSC frequency via the
> GUEST_TSC_FREQ MSR (C001_0134h).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h |  2 ++
>  arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c      |  5 +++++
>  3 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h
> index 9169b18eeb78..34f7b9fc363b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/sev.h
> @@ -536,6 +536,7 @@ static inline int handle_guest_request(struct snp_msg_desc *mdesc, u64 exit_code
>  }
>  
>  void __init snp_secure_tsc_prepare(void);
> +void __init securetsc_init(void);
>  
>  #else	/* !CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
>  
> @@ -584,6 +585,7 @@ static inline int handle_guest_request(struct snp_msg_desc *mdesc, u64 exit_code
>  				       u32 resp_sz) { return -ENODEV; }
>  
>  static inline void __init snp_secure_tsc_prepare(void) { }
> +static inline void __init securetsc_init(void) { }

This should probably be named snp_securetsc_init() or
snp_secure_tsc_init() (to be consistent with the function above it) so
that it is in the snp namespace.

>  
>  #endif	/* CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT */
>  
> diff --git a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> index 4e9b1cc1f26b..154d568c59cf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/coco/sev/core.c
> @@ -3065,3 +3065,19 @@ void __init snp_secure_tsc_prepare(void)
>  
>  	pr_debug("SecureTSC enabled");
>  }
> +
> +static unsigned long securetsc_get_tsc_khz(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long long tsc_freq_mhz;
> +
> +	setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ);
> +	rdmsrl(MSR_AMD64_GUEST_TSC_FREQ, tsc_freq_mhz);
> +
> +	return (unsigned long)(tsc_freq_mhz * 1000);
> +}
> +
> +void __init securetsc_init(void)
> +{
> +	x86_platform.calibrate_cpu = securetsc_get_tsc_khz;
> +	x86_platform.calibrate_tsc = securetsc_get_tsc_khz;
> +}
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index dfe6847fd99e..c83f1091bb4f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
>  #include <asm/i8259.h>
>  #include <asm/topology.h>
>  #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
> +#include <asm/sev.h>
>  
>  unsigned int __read_mostly cpu_khz;	/* TSC clocks / usec, not used here */
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpu_khz);
> @@ -1514,6 +1515,10 @@ void __init tsc_early_init(void)
>  	/* Don't change UV TSC multi-chassis synchronization */
>  	if (is_early_uv_system())
>  		return;
> +
> +	if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_GUEST_SNP_SECURE_TSC))
> +		securetsc_init();

Would this call be better in kvm_init_platform() or kvmclock_init()? Any
reason it has to be here?

Thanks,
Tom

> +
>  	if (!determine_cpu_tsc_frequencies(true))
>  		return;
>  	tsc_enable_sched_clock();