All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: dgilbert@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, pair@us.ibm.com,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	brijesh.singh@amd.com, ehabkost@redhat.com,
	marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
	qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
	"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	"Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [for-5.2 v4 10/10] s390: Recognize host-trust-limitation option
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:50:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200727175040.7beca3dd.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200724025744.69644-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:57:44 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> At least some s390 cpu models support "Protected Virtualization" (PV),
> a mechanism to protect guests from eavesdropping by a compromised
> hypervisor.
> 
> This is similar in function to other mechanisms like AMD's SEV and
> POWER's PEF, which are controlled bythe "host-trust-limitation"
> machine option.  s390 is a slightly special case, because we already
> supported PV, simply by using a CPU model with the required feature
> (S390_FEAT_UNPACK).
> 
> To integrate this with the option used by other platforms, we
> implement the following compromise:
> 
>  - When the host-trust-limitation option is set, s390 will recognize
>    it, verify that the CPU can support PV (failing if not) and set
>    virtio default options necessary for encrypted or protected guests,
>    as on other platforms.  i.e. if host-trust-limitation is set, we
>    will either create a guest capable of entering PV mode, or fail
>    outright
> 
>  - If host-trust-limitation is not set, guest's might still be able to
>    enter PV mode, if the CPU has the right model.  This may be a
>    little surprising, but shouldn't actually be harmful.

This could be workable, I guess. Would like a second opinion, though.

> 
> To start a guest supporting Protected Virtualization using the new
> option use the command line arguments:
>     -object s390-pv-guest,id=pv0 -machine host-trust-limitation=pv0
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/pv.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/pv.c b/hw/s390x/pv.c
> index ab3a2482aa..4bf3b345b6 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/pv.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/pv.c
> @@ -14,8 +14,11 @@
>  #include <linux/kvm.h>
>  
>  #include "cpu.h"
> +#include "qapi/error.h"
>  #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>  #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
> +#include "qom/object_interfaces.h"
> +#include "exec/host-trust-limitation.h"
>  #include "hw/s390x/ipl.h"
>  #include "hw/s390x/pv.h"
>  
> @@ -111,3 +114,61 @@ void s390_pv_inject_reset_error(CPUState *cs)
>      /* Report that we are unable to enter protected mode */
>      env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVAL_FOR_PV;
>  }
> +
> +#define TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST "s390-pv-guest"
> +#define S390_PV_GUEST(obj)                              \
> +    OBJECT_CHECK(S390PVGuestState, (obj), TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST)
> +
> +typedef struct S390PVGuestState S390PVGuestState;
> +
> +/**
> + * S390PVGuestState:
> + *
> + * The S390PVGuestState object is basically a dummy used to tell the
> + * host trust limitation system to use s390's PV mechanism.  guest.
> + *
> + * # $QEMU \
> + *         -object s390-pv-guest,id=pv0 \
> + *         -machine ...,host-trust-limitation=pv0
> + */
> +struct S390PVGuestState {
> +    Object parent_obj;
> +};
> +
> +static int s390_pv_kvm_init(HostTrustLimitation *gmpo, Error **errp)
> +{
> +    if (!s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_UNPACK)) {
> +        error_setg(errp,
> +                   "CPU model does not support Protected Virtualization");
> +        return -1;
> +    }
> +
> +    return 0;
> +}

So here's where I'm confused: If I follow the code correctly, the
->kvm_init callback is invoked before kvm_arch_init() is called. The
kvm_arch_init() implementation for s390x checks whether
KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED is available, which is a pre-req for
S390_FEAT_UNPACK. Am I missing something? Can someone with access to PV
hardware check whether this works as intended?

> +
> +static void s390_pv_guest_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> +{
> +    HostTrustLimitationClass *gmpc = HOST_TRUST_LIMITATION_CLASS(oc);
> +
> +    gmpc->kvm_init = s390_pv_kvm_init;
> +}
> +
> +static const TypeInfo s390_pv_guest_info = {
> +    .parent = TYPE_OBJECT,
> +    .name = TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST,
> +    .instance_size = sizeof(S390PVGuestState),
> +    .class_init = s390_pv_guest_class_init,
> +    .interfaces = (InterfaceInfo[]) {
> +        { TYPE_HOST_TRUST_LIMITATION },
> +        { TYPE_USER_CREATABLE },
> +        { }
> +    }
> +};
> +
> +static void
> +s390_pv_register_types(void)
> +{
> +    type_register_static(&s390_pv_guest_info);
> +}
> +
> +type_init(s390_pv_register_types);


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Cc: pair@us.ibm.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
	"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, "Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>,
	mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ehabkost@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [for-5.2 v4 10/10] s390: Recognize host-trust-limitation option
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 17:50:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200727175040.7beca3dd.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200724025744.69644-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:57:44 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> At least some s390 cpu models support "Protected Virtualization" (PV),
> a mechanism to protect guests from eavesdropping by a compromised
> hypervisor.
> 
> This is similar in function to other mechanisms like AMD's SEV and
> POWER's PEF, which are controlled bythe "host-trust-limitation"
> machine option.  s390 is a slightly special case, because we already
> supported PV, simply by using a CPU model with the required feature
> (S390_FEAT_UNPACK).
> 
> To integrate this with the option used by other platforms, we
> implement the following compromise:
> 
>  - When the host-trust-limitation option is set, s390 will recognize
>    it, verify that the CPU can support PV (failing if not) and set
>    virtio default options necessary for encrypted or protected guests,
>    as on other platforms.  i.e. if host-trust-limitation is set, we
>    will either create a guest capable of entering PV mode, or fail
>    outright
> 
>  - If host-trust-limitation is not set, guest's might still be able to
>    enter PV mode, if the CPU has the right model.  This may be a
>    little surprising, but shouldn't actually be harmful.

This could be workable, I guess. Would like a second opinion, though.

> 
> To start a guest supporting Protected Virtualization using the new
> option use the command line arguments:
>     -object s390-pv-guest,id=pv0 -machine host-trust-limitation=pv0
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/pv.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/pv.c b/hw/s390x/pv.c
> index ab3a2482aa..4bf3b345b6 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/pv.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/pv.c
> @@ -14,8 +14,11 @@
>  #include <linux/kvm.h>
>  
>  #include "cpu.h"
> +#include "qapi/error.h"
>  #include "qemu/error-report.h"
>  #include "sysemu/kvm.h"
> +#include "qom/object_interfaces.h"
> +#include "exec/host-trust-limitation.h"
>  #include "hw/s390x/ipl.h"
>  #include "hw/s390x/pv.h"
>  
> @@ -111,3 +114,61 @@ void s390_pv_inject_reset_error(CPUState *cs)
>      /* Report that we are unable to enter protected mode */
>      env->regs[r1 + 1] = DIAG_308_RC_INVAL_FOR_PV;
>  }
> +
> +#define TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST "s390-pv-guest"
> +#define S390_PV_GUEST(obj)                              \
> +    OBJECT_CHECK(S390PVGuestState, (obj), TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST)
> +
> +typedef struct S390PVGuestState S390PVGuestState;
> +
> +/**
> + * S390PVGuestState:
> + *
> + * The S390PVGuestState object is basically a dummy used to tell the
> + * host trust limitation system to use s390's PV mechanism.  guest.
> + *
> + * # $QEMU \
> + *         -object s390-pv-guest,id=pv0 \
> + *         -machine ...,host-trust-limitation=pv0
> + */
> +struct S390PVGuestState {
> +    Object parent_obj;
> +};
> +
> +static int s390_pv_kvm_init(HostTrustLimitation *gmpo, Error **errp)
> +{
> +    if (!s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_UNPACK)) {
> +        error_setg(errp,
> +                   "CPU model does not support Protected Virtualization");
> +        return -1;
> +    }
> +
> +    return 0;
> +}

So here's where I'm confused: If I follow the code correctly, the
->kvm_init callback is invoked before kvm_arch_init() is called. The
kvm_arch_init() implementation for s390x checks whether
KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED is available, which is a pre-req for
S390_FEAT_UNPACK. Am I missing something? Can someone with access to PV
hardware check whether this works as intended?

> +
> +static void s390_pv_guest_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> +{
> +    HostTrustLimitationClass *gmpc = HOST_TRUST_LIMITATION_CLASS(oc);
> +
> +    gmpc->kvm_init = s390_pv_kvm_init;
> +}
> +
> +static const TypeInfo s390_pv_guest_info = {
> +    .parent = TYPE_OBJECT,
> +    .name = TYPE_S390_PV_GUEST,
> +    .instance_size = sizeof(S390PVGuestState),
> +    .class_init = s390_pv_guest_class_init,
> +    .interfaces = (InterfaceInfo[]) {
> +        { TYPE_HOST_TRUST_LIMITATION },
> +        { TYPE_USER_CREATABLE },
> +        { }
> +    }
> +};
> +
> +static void
> +s390_pv_register_types(void)
> +{
> +    type_register_static(&s390_pv_guest_info);
> +}
> +
> +type_init(s390_pv_register_types);



  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-27 15:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-24  2:57 [for-5.2 v4 00/10] Generalize memory encryption models David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 01/10] host trust limitation: Introduce new host trust limitation interface David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 02/10] host trust limitation: Handle memory encryption via interface David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 03/10] host trust limitation: Move side effect out of machine_set_memory_encryption() David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 04/10] host trust limitation: Rework the "memory-encryption" property David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 05/10] host trust limitation: Decouple kvm_memcrypt_*() helpers from KVM David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 06/10] host trust limitation: Add Error ** to HostTrustLimitation::kvm_init David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 07/10] spapr: Add PEF based host trust limitation David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 08/10] spapr: PEF: block migration David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-27 15:01   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-07-27 15:01     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 09/10] host trust limitation: Alter virtio default properties for protected guests David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-27 15:05   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-07-27 15:05     ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-08-13  7:43     ` Greg Kurz
2020-08-13  7:43       ` Greg Kurz
2020-08-13  8:19       ` Greg Kurz
2020-08-13  8:19         ` Greg Kurz
2020-09-07 15:10   ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-07 15:10     ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-11  2:04     ` David Gibson
2020-09-11  2:04       ` David Gibson
2020-09-11 13:49       ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-11 13:49         ` Halil Pasic
2020-07-24  2:57 ` [for-5.2 v4 10/10] s390: Recognize host-trust-limitation option David Gibson
2020-07-24  2:57   ` David Gibson
2020-07-27 15:50   ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2020-07-27 15:50     ` Cornelia Huck
2020-08-03  7:40     ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-03  7:40       ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-06  6:14     ` David Gibson
2020-08-06  6:14       ` David Gibson
2020-08-06  7:18       ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-06  7:18         ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-03  7:49   ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-03  7:49     ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-03  7:54     ` David Gibson
2020-08-03  7:54       ` David Gibson
2020-08-03  8:07       ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-03  8:07         ` Janosch Frank
2020-08-03  8:14         ` David Gibson
2020-08-03  8:14           ` David Gibson
2020-08-03  8:33           ` Cornelia Huck
2020-08-03  8:33             ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-07 15:22   ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-07 15:22     ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-10 11:36     ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-10 11:36       ` Cornelia Huck
2020-09-10 18:29       ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-10 18:29         ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-11  0:07         ` David Gibson
2020-09-11  0:07           ` David Gibson
2020-09-11  6:25           ` Greg Kurz
2020-09-11  6:25             ` Greg Kurz
2020-09-11 12:45           ` Halil Pasic
2020-09-11 12:45             ` Halil Pasic

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200727175040.7beca3dd.cohuck@redhat.com \
    --to=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
    --cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
    --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
    --cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pair@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-s390x@nongnu.org \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    --cc=thuth@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.