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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD29EC4332F for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:17:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354078AbiASLRf (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2022 06:17:35 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]:32896 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1353333AbiASLRe (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2022 06:17:34 -0500 Received: from zn.tnic (dslb-088-067-202-008.088.067.pools.vodafone-ip.de [88.67.202.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 80D521EC0104; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:17:28 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1642591048; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=3JZMc0cZY/SUPYpFhVyzLfJhcLypzpNmmb+t6qBlwLE=; b=qUTlStzkk+lxcVwq7swjPFQ90VBHDXor/Tws967xJSIi7NJbDhMSz/XastqXpZeuvyTGp7 dxN3rR3fv510nGlnMCZYnyEltwTGh0aoC7CcRFjap1yroqzhNbhErBllK8CVsvnbqoQuzX AyR9nydZAv2CUODYccXnBOA4d3FTOhA= Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:17:22 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Michael Roth Cc: Brijesh Singh , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Joerg Roedel , Tom Lendacky , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ard Biesheuvel , Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Jim Mattson , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Sergio Lopez , Peter Gonda , Peter Zijlstra , Srinivas Pandruvada , David Rientjes , Dov Murik , Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum , Vlastimil Babka , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Andi Kleen , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 29/40] x86/compressed/64: add support for SEV-SNP CPUID table in #VC handlers Message-ID: References: <20220118043521.exgma53qrzrbalpd@amd.com> <20220118142345.65wuub2p3alavhpb@amd.com> <20220118143238.lu22npcktxuvadwk@amd.com> <20220118143730.wenhm2bbityq7wwy@amd.com> <20220118172043.djhy3dwg4fhhfqfs@amd.com> <20220118184930.nnwbgrfr723qabnq@amd.com> <20220119011806.av5rtxfv4et2sfkl@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220119011806.av5rtxfv4et2sfkl@amd.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 07:18:06PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > If 'fake_count'/'reported_count' is greater than the actual number of > entries in the table, 'actual_count', then all table entries up to > 'fake_count' will also need to pass validation. Generally the table > will be zero'd out initially, so those additional/bogus entries will > be interpreted as a CPUID leaves where all fields are 0. Unfortunately, > that's still considered a valid leaf, even if it's a duplicate of the > *actual* 0x0 leaf present earlier in the table. The current code will > handle this fine, since it scans the table in order, and uses the > valid 0x0 leaf earlier in the table. I guess it would be prudent to have some warnings when enumerating those leafs and when the count index "goes off into the weeds", so to speak, and starts reading 0-CPUID entries. I.e., "dear guest owner, your HV is giving you a big lie: a weird/bogus CPUID leaf count..." :-) And lemme make sure I understand it: the ->count itself is not measured/encrypted because you want to be flexible here and supply different blobs with different CPUID leafs? > This is isn't really a special case though, it falls under the general > category of a hypervisor inserting garbage entries that happen to pass > validation, but don't reflect values that a guest would normally see. > This will be detectable as part of guest owner attestation, since the > guest code is careful to guarantee that the values seen after boot, > once the attestation stage is reached, will be identical to the values > seen during boot, so if this sort of manipulation of CPUID values > occurred, the guest owner will notice this during attestation, and can > abort the boot at that point. The Documentation patch addresses this > in more detail. Yap, it is important this is properly explained there so that people can pay attention to during attestation. > If 'fake_count' is less than 'actual_count', then the PSP skips > validation for anything >= 'fake_count', and leaves them in the table. > That should also be fine though, since guest code should never exceed > 'fake_count'/'reported_count', as that's a blatant violation of the > spec, and it doesn't make any sense for a guest to do this. This will > effectively 'hide' entries, but those resulting missing CPUID leaves > will be noticeable to the guest owner once attestation phase is > reached. Noticeable because the guest owner did supply a CPUID table with X entries but the HV is reporting Y? If so, you can make this part of the attestation process: guest owners should always check the CPUID entries count to be of a certain value. > This does all highlight the need for some very thorough guidelines > on how a guest owner should implement their attestation checks for > cpuid, however. I think a section in the reference implementation > notes/document that covers this would be a good starting point. I'll > also check with the PSP team on tightening up some of these CPUID > page checks to rule out some of these possibilities in the future. Now you're starting to grow the right amount of paranoia - I'm glad I was able to sensitize you properly! :-))) > Nevermind, that doesn't work since snp_cpuid_info_get_ptr() is also called > by snp_cpuid_info_get_ptr() *prior* to initializing the table, so it ends > seeing cpuid->count==0 and fails right away. So your initial suggestion > of checking cpuid->count==0 at the call-sites to determine if the table > is enabled is probably the best option. > > Sorry for the noise/confusion. No worries - the end result is important! Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette