From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A29C433DB for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 02:02:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E338F64E0F for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 02:02:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234520AbhBDCCa (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:02:30 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35380 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234515AbhBDCC2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Feb 2021 21:02:28 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16976C0613ED for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id j12so1075349pfj.12 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:01:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=DtUPzvdSOR9fjDAlTd/uhz2q5QjDz0FBQNRxgqXFivo=; b=qqw4X6b0a4Fbc9brS/xTZMzHjRYlADZzcFubyadKSrWUFh+04aY85Ru9jt6bx5eWGx OTPUOKqNbPRqGQylm8aqmu8bSQKUZ0JPK/u8ZpGHvY2+Vx5z0ixQjBrJT9PLdOLZza6w TKjkPdlvfCq4a7/ERJnOMKMV95SGvUshi92xifEWiFh2YgFNvGQwzMXl/1+zxaHlLKDb IdLk0sgeTHV3dMbr01rf2CTdmCnwB1Uhc4Gr8QIj09+Wmf1RZezXRkbGfmiUXvOCMIfq B3ibvFCl+BPzMYw3+GM9nW6giT7tbRISRMm1UGet2/n5qgyrHcY60Z5HvhTahW6LRva2 0eiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=DtUPzvdSOR9fjDAlTd/uhz2q5QjDz0FBQNRxgqXFivo=; b=pOublfd20SEmMSYoCRiQOMa6x7YjqQ3nkhUZ4sXdWTrcEUbvHVOgGLXoBqPzriLew3 I74xK1tA85SR+0WZ+gy7SdN2XidnX99HVmfTNNKfijUqzyqhWXmveUR7WhngE68wdyBj wVYx+ETkW1yTF/E88dnBfzGSlxiWSKJnpncjJb5QRq0x8OgmNFhBFKbCdpMosvby9Cnh SJaFGzdb3XnNAQEhP1Uf8GRod0xwlL5aEL313J7nl0osLzjJCPOxaIASmE9Me8+doBDq Rabnph182PuzoDI1VqM4pTzFhc5kSg1B9I8jyqhLFkwMYxMAIBHiRaAekVWoNozlairh Xd6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533fIHFISNLm0stKTQzDWZhZsD4yaro2AwUuuslQlBeyprIkTNTZ SP1HlRnhSZZXhXW1q6rcBoSSHw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYWhJ/dbpr9l922PPdzUOxnxCHY8Yx62KtczzPdOuik54gXupFekv2+lQ3u3chZoPVvr+8Xw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:6409:: with SMTP id a9mr6591303pgv.171.1612404107310; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:01:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:f:10:a9a0:e924:d161:b6cb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p17sm358770pgn.38.2021.02.03.18.01.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:01:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 18:01:39 -0800 From: Sean Christopherson To: Kai Huang Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" , "linux-sgx@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , "Huang, Haitao" , "luto@kernel.org" , "jarkko@kernel.org" , "Hansen, Dave" , "vkuznets@redhat.com" , "bp@alien8.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "joro@8bytes.org" , "wanpengli@tencent.com" , "jmattson@google.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 23/27] KVM: VMX: Add SGX ENCLS[ECREATE] handler to enforce CPUID restrictions Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 04, 2021, Kai Huang wrote: > On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 15:59 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021, Kai Huang wrote: > > > On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 15:36 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2021-02-03 at 11:36 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 22:31 +1300, Kai Huang wrote: > > > > > > > Don't you need to deep copy the pageinfo.contents struct as well? > > > > > > > Otherwise the guest could change these after they were checked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it seems it is checked by the HW and something is caught that would > > > > > > > inject a GP anyway? Can you elaborate on the importance of these > > > > > > > checks? > > > > > > > > > > > > Argh, yes. These checks are to allow migration between systems with different > > > > > > SGX capabilities, and more importantly to prevent userspace from doing an end > > > > > > around on the restricted access to PROVISIONKEY. > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, earlier versions did do a deep copy, but then I got clever. Anyways, yeah, > > > > > > sadly the entire pageinfo.contents page will need to be copied. > > > > > > > > > > I don't fully understand the problem. Are you worried about contents being updated by > > > > > other vcpus during the trap?  > > > > > > > > > > And I don't see how copy can avoid this problem. Even you do copy, the content can > > > > > still be modified afterwards, correct? So what's the point of copying? > > > > > > > > The goal isn't correctness, it's to prevent a TOCTOU bug. E.g. the guest could > > > > do ECREATE w/ SECS.SGX_ATTR_PROVISIONKEY=0, and simultaneously set > > > > SGX_ATTR_PROVISIONKEY to bypass the above check. > > > > > > Oh ok. Agreed. > > > > > > However, such attack would require precise timing. Not sure whether it is feasible in > > > practice. > > > > It's very feasible. XOR the bit in a tight loop, build the enclave on a > > separate thread. Do that until EINIT succeeds. Compared to other timing > > attacks, I doubt it'd take all that long to get a successful result. > > How does it work? The setting PROVISION bit needs to be set after KVM checks SECS's > attribute, and before KVM actually does ECREATE, right? Yep. More precisely, toggled between KVM's read into its local copy and final execution of ECREATE. It's actually a huge window when you consider how many uops ENCLS has to churn through before it reads 'contents'. The success rate would probaby be 25%: 50% chance KVM's read sees the 'good' value, 50% chance the CPU sees the 'bad' value in the same exit.