On Sat, Dec 30, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>
>
> The KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE command can be used to insert data into
> the guest's memory. The data is encrypted with the cryptographic context
> created with the KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_START.
>
> In addition to the inserting data, it can insert a two special pages
> into the guests memory: the secrets page and the CPUID page.
>
> While terminating the guest, reclaim the guest pages added in the RMP
> table. If the reclaim fails, then the page is no longer safe to be
> released back to the system and leak them.
>
> For more information see the SEV-SNP specification.
Please rewrite all changelogs to explain what *KVM* support is being added, why
the proposed uAPI looks like it does, and how the new uAPI is intended be used.
Porividing a crash course on the relevant hardware behavior is definitely helpful,
but the changelog absolutely needs to explain/justify the patch.
> Co-developed-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst | 28 +++
> arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++++
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 19 ++
> 3 files changed, 228 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> index b1beb2fe8766..d4325b26724c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> @@ -485,6 +485,34 @@ Returns: 0 on success, -negative on error
>
> See the SEV-SNP specification for further detail on the launch input.
>
> +20. KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE
> +-------------------------
> +
> +The KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE is used for encrypting a memory region. It also
> +calculates a measurement of the memory contents. The measurement is a signature
> +of the memory contents that can be sent to the guest owner as an attestation
> +that the memory was encrypted correctly by the firmware.
> +
> +Parameters (in): struct kvm_snp_launch_update
> +
> +Returns: 0 on success, -negative on error
> +
> +::
> +
> + struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_update {
> + __u64 start_gfn; /* Guest page number to start from. */
> + __u64 uaddr; /* userspace address need to be encrypted */
Huh? Why is KVM taking a userspace address? IIUC, the address unconditionally
gets translated into a gfn, so why not pass a gfn?
And speaking of gfns, AFAICT start_gfn is never used.
Oof, reading more of the code, this *requires* an effective in-place copy-and-convert
of guest memory.
> + __u32 len; /* length of memory region */
Bytes? Pages? One field above operates on frame numbers, one apparently operates
on a byte-granularity address.
> + __u8 imi_page; /* 1 if memory is part of the IMI */
What's "the IMI"? Initial Measurement Image? I assume this is essentially just
a flag that communicates whether or not the page should be measured?
> + __u8 page_type; /* page type */
> + __u8 vmpl3_perms; /* VMPL3 permission mask */
> + __u8 vmpl2_perms; /* VMPL2 permission mask */
> + __u8 vmpl1_perms; /* VMPL1 permission mask */
Why? KVM doesn't support VMPLs.
> +static int snp_page_reclaim(u64 pfn)
> +{
> + struct sev_data_snp_page_reclaim data = {0};
> + int err, rc;
> +
> + data.paddr = __sme_set(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + rc = sev_do_cmd(SEV_CMD_SNP_PAGE_RECLAIM, &data, &err);
> + if (rc) {
> + /*
> + * If the reclaim failed, then page is no longer safe
> + * to use.
Uh, why can reclaim fail, and why does the kernel apparently not care about
leaking pages? AFAICT, nothing ever complains beyond a pr_debug. That sounds
bonkers to me, i.e. at the very minimum, why doesn't this warrant a WARN_ON_ONCE?
> + */
> + snp_leak_pages(pfn, 1);
> + }
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
> +
> +static int host_rmp_make_shared(u64 pfn, enum pg_level level, bool leak)
> +{
> + int rc;
> +
> + rc = rmp_make_shared(pfn, level);
> + if (rc && leak)
> + snp_leak_pages(pfn,
> + page_level_size(level) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
Completely unnecessary wrap.
> +
> + return rc;
> +}
> +
> static void sev_unbind_asid(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int handle)
> {
> struct sev_data_deactivate deactivate;
> @@ -1990,6 +2020,154 @@ static int snp_launch_start(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)
> return rc;
> }
>
> +static int snp_launch_update_gfn_handler(struct kvm *kvm,
> + struct kvm_gfn_range *range,
> + void *opaque)
> +{
> + struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot = range->slot;
> + struct sev_data_snp_launch_update data = {0};
> + struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_update params;
> + struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp = opaque;
> + int *error = &argp->error;
> + int i, n = 0, ret = 0;
> + unsigned long npages;
> + kvm_pfn_t *pfns;
> + gfn_t gfn;
> +
> + if (!kvm_slot_can_be_private(memslot)) {
> + pr_err("SEV-SNP requires private memory support via guest_memfd.\n");
Yeah, no. Sprinkling pr_err() all over the place in user-triggerable error paths
is not acceptable. I get that it's often hard to extract "what went wrong" out
of the kernel, but adding pr_err() everywhere is not a viable solution.
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (copy_from_user(¶ms, (void __user *)(uintptr_t)argp->data, sizeof(params))) {
> + pr_err("Failed to copy user parameters for SEV-SNP launch.\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + data.gctx_paddr = __psp_pa(sev->snp_context);
> +
> + npages = range->end - range->start;
> + pfns = kvmalloc_array(npages, sizeof(*pfns), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> + if (!pfns)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + pr_debug("%s: GFN range 0x%llx-0x%llx, type %d\n", __func__,
> + range->start, range->end, params.page_type);
> +
> + for (gfn = range->start, i = 0; gfn < range->end; gfn++, i++) {
> + int order, level;
> + bool assigned;
> + void *kvaddr;
> +
> + ret = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(kvm, memslot, gfn, &pfns[i], &order, false);
> + if (ret)
> + goto e_release;
> +
> + n++;
> + ret = snp_lookup_rmpentry((u64)pfns[i], &assigned, &level);
> + if (ret || assigned) {
> + pr_err("Failed to ensure GFN 0x%llx is in initial shared state, ret: %d, assigned: %d\n",
> + gfn, ret, assigned);
> + return -EFAULT;
> + }
> +
> + kvaddr = pfn_to_kaddr(pfns[i]);
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(kvaddr)) {
I really, really don't like that this assume guest_memfd is backed by struct page.
> + pr_err("Invalid HVA 0x%llx for GFN 0x%llx\n", (uint64_t)kvaddr, gfn);
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto e_release;
> + }
> +
> + ret = kvm_read_guest_page(kvm, gfn, kvaddr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
Good gravy. If I'm reading this correctly, KVM:
1. Translates an HVA into a GFN.
2. Gets the PFN for that GFN from guest_memfd
3. Verifies the PFN is not assigned to the guest
4. Copies memory from the shared memslot page to the guest_memfd page
5. Converts the page to private and asks the PSP to encrypt it
(a) As above, why is #1 a thing?
(b) Why are KVM's memory attributes never consulted?
(c) What prevents TOCTOU issues with respect to the RMP?
(d) Why is *KVM* copying memory into guest_memfd?
(e) What guarantees the direct map is valid for guest_memfd?
(f) Why does KVM's uAPI *require* the source page to come from the same memslot?
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("Guest read failed, ret: 0x%x\n", ret);
> + goto e_release;
> + }
> +
> + ret = rmp_make_private(pfns[i], gfn << PAGE_SHIFT, PG_LEVEL_4K,
> + sev_get_asid(kvm), true);
> + if (ret) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto e_release;
> + }
> +
> + data.address = __sme_set(pfns[i] << PAGE_SHIFT);
> + data.page_size = PG_LEVEL_TO_RMP(PG_LEVEL_4K);
> + data.page_type = params.page_type;
> + data.vmpl3_perms = params.vmpl3_perms;
> + data.vmpl2_perms = params.vmpl2_perms;
> + data.vmpl1_perms = params.vmpl1_perms;
> + ret = __sev_issue_cmd(argp->sev_fd, SEV_CMD_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE,
> + &data, error);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("SEV-SNP launch update failed, ret: 0x%x, fw_error: 0x%x\n",
> + ret, *error);
> + snp_page_reclaim(pfns[i]);
> +
> + /*
> + * When invalid CPUID function entries are detected, the firmware
> + * corrects these entries for debugging purpose and leaves the
> + * page unencrypted so it can be provided users for debugging
> + * and error-reporting.
> + *
> + * Copy the corrected CPUID page back to shared memory so
> + * userpsace can retrieve this information.
Why? IIUC, this is basically backdooring reads/writes into guest_memfd to avoid
having to add proper mmap() support.
> + */
> + if (params.page_type == SNP_PAGE_TYPE_CPUID &&
> + *error == SEV_RET_INVALID_PARAM) {
> + int ret;
Ugh, do not shadow variables.
> +
> + host_rmp_make_shared(pfns[i], PG_LEVEL_4K, true);
> +
> + ret = kvm_write_guest_page(kvm, gfn, kvaddr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> + if (ret)
> + pr_err("Failed to write CPUID page back to userspace, ret: 0x%x\n",
> + ret);
> + }
> +
> + goto e_release;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +e_release:
> + /* Content of memory is updated, mark pages dirty */
> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> + set_page_dirty(pfn_to_page(pfns[i]));
> + mark_page_accessed(pfn_to_page(pfns[i]));
> +
> + /*
> + * If its an error, then update RMP entry to change page ownership
> + * to the hypervisor.
> + */
> + if (ret)
> + host_rmp_make_shared(pfns[i], PG_LEVEL_4K, true);
> +
> + put_page(pfn_to_page(pfns[i]));
> + }
> +
> + kvfree(pfns);
Saving PFNs from guest_memfd, which is fully owned by KVM, is so unnecessarily
complex. Add a guest_memfd API (or three) to do this safely, e.g. to lock the
pages, do (and track) the RMP conversion, etc...
