On 9/15/20 3:13 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 9/15/20 11:30 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 08:37:12AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> On 9/14/20 4:26 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:15:22PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>>>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the guest register state of an SEV-ES guest is encrypted, debugging
>>>>> is not supported. Update the code to prevent guest debugging when the
>>>>> guest is an SEV-ES guest. This includes adding a callable function that
>>>>> is used to determine if the guest supports being debugged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 7 +++++++
>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 3 +++
>>>>> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>> index c900992701d6..3e2a3d2a8ba8 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>> @@ -1234,6 +1234,8 @@ struct kvm_x86_ops {
>>>>> void (*reg_read_override)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_reg reg);
>>>>> void (*reg_write_override)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_reg reg,
>>>>> unsigned long val);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + bool (*allow_debug)(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>
>>>> Why add both allow_debug() and vmsa_encrypted? I assume there are scenarios
>>>> where allow_debug() != vmsa_encrypted? E.g. is there a debug mode for SEV-ES
>>>> where the VMSA is not encrypted, but KVM (ironically) can't intercept #DBs or
>>>> something?
>>>
>>> No, once the guest has had LAUNCH_UPDATE_VMSA run against the vCPUs, then
>>> the vCPU states are all encrypted. But that doesn't mean that debugging
>>> can't be done in the future.
>>
>> I don't quite follow the "doesn't mean debugging can't be done in the future".
>> Does that imply that debugging could be supported for SEV-ES guests, even if
>> they have an encrypted VMSA?
>
> Almost anything can be done with software. It would require a lot of
> hypervisor and guest code and changes to the GHCB spec, etc. So given
> that, probably just the check for arch.guest_state_protected is enough for
> now. I'll just need to be sure none of the debugging paths can be taken
> before the VMSA is encrypted.
So I don't think there's any guarantee that the KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG ioctl
couldn't be called before the VMSA is encrypted, meaning I can't check the
arch.guest_state_protected bit for that call. So if we really want to get
rid of the allow_debug() op, I'd need some other way to indicate that this
is an SEV-ES / protected state guest.
How are you planning on blocking this ioctl for TDX? Would the
arch.guest_state_protected bit be sit earlier than is done for SEV-ES?
Thanks,
Tom
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
