linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Andrey Ryabinin" <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	"Alexander Potapenko" <glider@google.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:17:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57615561.4090502@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160613135110.GC2658@codeblueprint.co.uk>

On 06/13/2016 08:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun, at 01:33:30PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>
>> I was trying to play it safe here, but as you say, the firmware should
>> be using our page tables so we can get rid of this call. The problem
>> will actually be if we transition to a 32-bit efi. The encryption bit
>> will be lost in cr3 and so the pgd table will have to be un-encrypted.
>> The entries in the pgd can have the encryption bit set so I would only
>> need to worry about the pgd itself. I'll have to update the
>> efi_alloc_page_tables routine.
>  
> Interesting, I hadn't expected 32-bit EFI to be an option for
> platforms with the SME technology. I'd assumed we could just ignore
> that.

We may be able to do that.

> 
> Are you saying that the encryption bit isn't supported in 32-bit
> compatibility mode? We don't do a "full" switch to 32-bit protected
> mode when in mixed mode, just load a 32-bit code segment descriptor.
> The page tables are not modified at all.

The encryption bit is supported in 32-bit compatibility mode and since
we're not doing the "full" switch the cr3 register will remain as a
64-bit register so we can leave the pgd table encrypted.

> 
>> The encryption bit in the cr3 register will indicate if the pgd table
>> is encrypted or not. Based on my comment above about the pgd having
>> to be un-encrypted in case we have to transition to 32-bit efi, this
>> can be removed.
>  
> I'm not (yet) sure that the pgd needs to be unencrypted for 32-bit EFI
> when running a 64-bit kernel. In the AMD Programmer's Manual, Section
> 7.10.3 Operating Modes seems to indicate that running encrypted should
> work fine.
> 
>> I'll look into this a bit more. From looking at it I don't want the
>> _PAGE_ENC bit set for the memmap unless it gets re-allocated (which
>> I missed in these patches). Let me see what I can do with this.
>  
> I don't understand your comment about re-allocating the memmap.
> 
> The kernel builds its own EFI memory map at runtime, initially based
> on the memory map provided by the firmware. We always allocate a new
> memory map.

Sorry, I mis-interpreted the efi_map_regions function/loop and see
that the memmap is always allocated by the kernel.

> 
> In efi_setup_page_tables() we're building our own page tables, which
> should be encrypted, and mapping EFI regions described by the memmap
> into those page tables.
> 
> So unless we're mapping an MMIO region (in which case _PAGE_PCD is set
> in @flags for kernel_map_pages_in_pgd()) I would expect _PAGE_ENC to
> be set.
> 
>> I'll look further into this, but I saw that this area of virtual memory
>> was mapped un-encrypted and after freeing the boot services the
>> mappings were somehow reused as un-encrypted for DMA which assumes
>> (unless using swiotlb) encrypted. This resulted in DMA data being
>> transferred in as encrypted and then accessed un-encrypted.
> 
> That the mappings were re-used isn't a surprise.
> 
> efi_free_boot_services() lifts the reservation that was put in place
> during efi_reserve_boot_services() and releases the pages to the
> kernel's memory allocators.
> 
> What is surprising is that they were marked unencrypted at all.
> There's nothing special about these pages as far as the __va() region
> is concerned.

Right, let me keep looking into this to see if I can pin down what
was (or is) happening.

Thanks,
Tom

> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-15 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-26 22:55 [RFC PATCH v1 00/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD) Tom Lendacky
2016-03-22 13:00 ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 14:05   ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-27 14:30     ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 14:39       ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-27 14:58         ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 15:47         ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 14:21   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/18] x86: Set the write-protect cache mode for AMD processors Tom Lendacky
2016-04-27 14:33   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-27 14:44     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-27 14:47       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-27 15:05         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-27 15:12           ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-27 15:31             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-27 15:34               ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build enablement Tom Lendacky
2016-03-22 13:01   ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 15:17     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-27 15:30       ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 15:41         ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-27 16:41           ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 17:07             ` Robin Murphy
2016-04-27 17:12             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support Tom Lendacky
2016-03-22 13:03   ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 16:20     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/18] x86: Add the Secure Memory Encryption cpu feature Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/18] x86: Handle reduction in physical address size with SME Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/18] x86: Provide general kernel support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/18] x86: Extend the early_memmap support with additional attrs Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/18] x86: Add support for early encryption/decryption of memory Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/18] x86: Insure that memory areas are encrypted when possible Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Tom Lendacky
2016-05-10 13:43   ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-10 13:57     ` Borislav Petkov
2016-05-12 18:20       ` Tom Lendacky
2016-05-24 14:54         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-05-25 16:09           ` Daniel Kiper
2016-05-25 19:30           ` Matt Fleming
2016-05-26 13:45             ` Tom Lendacky
2016-06-08 10:07               ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-09 16:16                 ` Tom Lendacky
2016-06-13 12:03                   ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-13 12:34                     ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-13 15:16                     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-06-08 11:18   ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-09 18:33     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-06-13 13:51       ` Matt Fleming
2016-06-15 13:17         ` Tom Lendacky [this message]
2016-06-16 14:38           ` Tom Lendacky
2016-06-17 15:51             ` Matt Fleming
2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 11/18] x86: Decrypt trampoline area if memory encryption is active Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 12/18] x86: Access device tree in the clear Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 13/18] x86: DMA support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky
     [not found]   ` <20160429071743.GC11592@char.us.oracle.com>
2016-04-29 15:12     ` Tom Lendacky
     [not found]       ` <20160429162757.GA1191@char.us.oracle.com>
2016-04-29 23:49         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 14/18] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU " Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 15/18] x86: Enable memory encryption on the APs Tom Lendacky
2016-05-01 22:10   ` Huang, Kai
2016-05-03 15:59     ` Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 16/18] x86: Do not specify encrypted memory for VGA mapping Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 17/18] x86/kvm: Enable Secure Memory Encryption of nested page tables Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 18/18] x86: Add support to turn on Secure Memory Encryption Tom Lendacky
2016-03-22 13:13   ` Pavel Machek
2016-04-27 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH v1 00/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD) Andy Lutomirski
2016-04-27 20:10   ` Tom Lendacky
2016-05-02 18:31     ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-05-09 15:13       ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-05-09 21:08         ` Tom Lendacky
2016-05-10 11:23           ` Paolo Bonzini
2016-05-10 12:04             ` Borislav Petkov
2016-04-30  6:13 ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)
2016-05-03 15:55   ` Tom Lendacky
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-04-26 22:45 Tom Lendacky
2016-04-26 22:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Tom Lendacky

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=57615561.4090502@amd.com \
    --to=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=aryabinin@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=glider@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).