netdev - RE: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard coco mechanisms

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:11:18 +0000
From:   "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "lpieralisi@...nel.org" <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "kw@...ux.com" <kw@...ux.com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "brijesh.singh@....com" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@...el.com" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "jane.chu@...cle.com" <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [Patch v3 07/14] x86/hyperv: Change vTOM handling to use standard
 coco mechanisms

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 9:47 AM
> 
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:49:06PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > But it turns out that AMD really has two fairly different schemes:
> > the C-bit scheme and the vTOM scheme.
> 
> Except it doesn't:
> 
> "In the VMSA of an SNP-active guest, the VIRTUAL_TOM field designates
> a 2MB aligned guest physical address called the virtual top of memory.
> When bit 1 (vTOM) of SEV_FEATURES is set in the VMSA of an SNP-active
> VM, the VIRTUAL_TOM..."
> 
> So SEV_FEATURES[1] is vTOM and it is part of SNP.
> 
> Why do you keep harping on this being something else is beyond me...
> 
> I already pointed you to the patch which adds this along with the other
> SEV_FEATURES.
> 
> > The details of these two AMD schemes are pretty different. vTOM is
> > *not* just a minor option on the C-bit scheme. It's an either/or -- a
> > guest VM is either doing the C-bit scheme or the vTOM scheme, not some
> > combination. Linux code in coco/core.c could choose to treat C-bit and
> > vTOM as two sub-schemes under CC_VENDOR_AMD, but that makes the code a
> > bit messy because we end up with "if" statements to figure out whether
> > to do things the C-bit way or the vTOM way.
> 
> Are you saying that that:
> 
> 	if (cc_vendor == CC_VENDOR_AMD &&
> 	    sev_features & MSR_AMD64_SNP_VTOM_ENABLED)
> 
> is messy? Why?
> 
> We will have to support vTOM sooner or later.
> 
> > Or we could model the two AMD schemes as two different vendors,
> > which is what I'm suggesting.  Doing so recognizes that the two schemes
> > are fairly disjoint, and it makes the code cleaner.
> 
> How is that any different from the above check?
> 
> You *need* some sort of a check to differentiate between the two anyway.
> 

Alright.  Enough conceptual debate.  I'll do a v4 of the patch series with
the AMD C-bit and vTOM schemes folder under CC_VENDOR_AMD and
we can see if there's any further feedback.  I should have that v4 out later
today or tomorrow.

Michael