On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 9:46 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 08:23:18AM -0700, Peter Gonda wrote: > > The ASP and an SNP guest use a series of AES-GCM keys called VMPCKs to > > ASP? > > That must be the AMD Secure Processor or so but pls write it out. Yes I'll update to write out AMD Secure Processor (ASP). So that the acronym is clear through in each comment block. > > > communicate securely with each other. The IV to this scheme is a > > sequence number that both the ASP and the guest track. Currently this > > sequence number in a guest request must exactly match the sequence > > number tracked by the ASP. This means that if the guest sees an error > > from the host during a request it can only retry that exact request or > > disable the VMPCK to prevent an IV reuse. AES-GCM cannot tolerate IV > > reuse see: > > https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/block-cipher-techniques/documents/bcm/comments/800-38-series-drafts/gcm/joux_comments.pdf > > Right, how stable will that link be? > > IOW, perhaps quote the paper name and authors so that people can find it > on their own. I will update to the title + authors. > > > To handle userspace querying the cert_data length handle_guest_request() > > now: saves the number of pages required by the host, retries the request > > This needs to sound like this: > > "In order to address this, save the number of pages ..." > > IOW, as the docs say: > > "Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz" > instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy > to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change > its behaviour." Thanks I have updated the comments and description to this style for the next revision. > > > without requesting the extended data, then returns the number of pages > > required. > > > > Fixes: fce96cf044308 ("virt: Add SEV-SNP guest driver") > > I'm guessing this needs to go to stable? Yes this should go to stable. > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Peter Gonda <pgonda@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Haowen Bai <baihaowen@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Marc Orr <marcorr@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > > Tested by placing each of the guest requests: attestation quote, > > extended attestation quote, and get key. Then tested the extended > > attestation quote certificate length querying. > > > > V4 > > * As suggested by Dionna moved the extended request retry logic into > > the driver. > > * Due to big change in patch dropped any reviewed-by tags. > > > > --- > > drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c b/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c > > index f422f9c58ba79..7dd6337ebdd5b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c > > +++ b/drivers/virt/coco/sev-guest/sev-guest.c > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct snp_guest_dev { > > struct device *dev; > > struct miscdevice misc; > > > > - void *certs_data; > > + u8 (*certs_data)[SEV_FW_BLOB_MAX_SIZE]; > > struct snp_guest_crypto *crypto; > > struct snp_guest_msg *request, *response; > > struct snp_secrets_page_layout *layout; > > @@ -67,8 +67,27 @@ static bool is_vmpck_empty(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev) > > return true; > > } > > > > +/* > > + * If we receive an error from the host or ASP we have two options. We can > > Please use passive voice in your commit message: no "we" or "I", etc, > and describe your changes in imperative mood. > > Bottom line is: personal pronouns are ambiguous in text, especially with > so many parties/companies/etc developing the kernel so let's avoid them > please. I have removed the pronouns for the next revision. > > > + * either retry the exact same encrypted request or we can discontinue using the > > + * VMPCK. > > + * > > + * This is because in the current encryption scheme GHCB v2 uses AES-GCM to > > + * encrypt the requests. The IV for this scheme is the sequence number. GCM > > + * cannot tolerate IV reuse. > > + * > > + * The ASP FW v1.51 only increments the sequence numbers on a successful > > + * guest<->ASP back and forth and only accepts messages at its exact sequence > > + * number. > > + * > > + * So if we were to reuse the sequence number the encryption scheme is > > + * vulnerable. If we encrypt the sequence number for a fresh IV the ASP will > > + * reject our request. > > + */ > > static void snp_disable_vmpck(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev) > > { > > + dev_alert(snp_dev->dev, "Disabling vmpck_id: %d to prevent IV reuse.\n", > > + vmpck_id); > > memzero_explicit(snp_dev->vmpck, VMPCK_KEY_LEN); > > snp_dev->vmpck = NULL; > > } > > @@ -323,32 +342,49 @@ static int handle_guest_request(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev, u64 exit_code, in > > > > /* Call firmware to process the request */ > > rc = snp_issue_guest_request(exit_code, &snp_dev->input, &err); > > + > > + /* > > + * If the extended guest request fails due to having to small of a > > "... too small... " > > > + * certificate data buffer retry the same guest request without the > > + * extended data request. > > + */ > > + if (exit_code == SVM_VMGEXIT_EXT_GUEST_REQUEST && > > + err == SNP_GUEST_REQ_INVALID_LEN) { > > + const unsigned int certs_npages = snp_dev->input.data_npages; > > + > > + exit_code = SVM_VMGEXIT_GUEST_REQUEST; > > + rc = snp_issue_guest_request(exit_code, &snp_dev->input, &err); > > + > > + err = SNP_GUEST_REQ_INVALID_LEN; > > Huh, why are we overwriting err here? I have added a comment for the next revision. We are overwriting err here so that userspace is alerted that they supplied a buffer too small. > > > + snp_dev->input.data_npages = certs_npages; > > + } > > + > > if (fw_err) > > *fw_err = err; > > > > - if (rc) > > - return rc; > > + if (rc) { > > + dev_alert(snp_dev->dev, > > + "Detected error from ASP request. rc: %d, fw_err: %llu\n", > > + rc, *fw_err); > > + goto disable_vmpck; > > + } > > > > - /* > > - * The verify_and_dec_payload() will fail only if the hypervisor is > > - * actively modifying the message header or corrupting the encrypted payload. > > - * This hints that hypervisor is acting in a bad faith. Disable the VMPCK so that > > - * the key cannot be used for any communication. The key is disabled to ensure > > - * that AES-GCM does not use the same IV while encrypting the request payload. > > - */ > > rc = verify_and_dec_payload(snp_dev, resp_buf, resp_sz); > > if (rc) { > > dev_alert(snp_dev->dev, > > - "Detected unexpected decode failure, disabling the vmpck_id %d\n", > > - vmpck_id); > > - snp_disable_vmpck(snp_dev); > > - return rc; > > + "Detected unexpected decode failure from ASP. rc: %d\n", > > + rc); > > + goto disable_vmpck; > > } > > > > /* Increment to new message sequence after payload decryption was successful. */ > > snp_inc_msg_seqno(snp_dev); > > > > return 0; > > + > > +disable_vmpck: > > + snp_disable_vmpck(snp_dev); > > + return rc; > > } > > > > static int get_report(struct snp_guest_dev *snp_dev, struct snp_guest_request_ioctl *arg) > > @@ -676,7 +712,7 @@ static int __init sev_guest_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (!snp_dev->response) > > goto e_free_request; > > > > - snp_dev->certs_data = alloc_shared_pages(dev, SEV_FW_BLOB_MAX_SIZE); > > + snp_dev->certs_data = alloc_shared_pages(dev, sizeof(*snp_dev->certs_data)); > > What's that change for? > > I went searching for that ->certs_data only ot realize that it is an > array of size of SEV_FW_BLOB_MAX_SIZE elems. > > Thx. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH > GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman > (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
