[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH Part2 v6 14/49] crypto: ccp: Handle the legacy TMR allocation when SNP is enabled
Hello Boris,

On 11/20/2022 3:34 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:56:47PM -0600, Kalra, Ashish wrote:
>> So we need to be able to reclaim all the pages or none.
> /me goes and looks at SNP_PAGE_RECLAIM's retvals:
> - INVALID_PLATFORM_STATE - platform is not in INIT state. That's
> certainly not a reason to leak pages.

This should not happen, as there are sev->snp_initialized checks before
any firmware page allocation or snp page transitions.

> - INVALID_ADDRESS - PAGE_PADDR is not a valid system physical address.
> That's botched command buffer but not a broken page so no reason to leak
> them either.
> - INVALID_PAGE_STATE - the page is neither of those types: metadata,
> firmware, pre-guest nor pre-swap. So if you issue page reclaim on the
> wrong range of pages that looks again like a user error but no need to
> leak pages.
> - INVALID_PAGE_SIZE - a size mismatch. Still sounds to me like a user
> error of sev-guest instead of anything wrong deeper in the FW or HW.
> So in all those, if you end up supplying the wrong range of addresses,
> you most certainly will end up leaking the wrong pages.
> So it sounds to me like you wanna say: "Error reclaiming range, check
> your driver" instead of punishing any innocent pages.

I agree, but these pages are not in the right state to be released back
to the system or accessed by the host, because they have already been
transitioned successfully to firmware state and the reclaim has failed.
If we release them back to page-allocator and whenever the host accesses
them, it will get a not-present #PF and it will panic/crash the host

It might be a user/sev-guest error, but these pages are now unsafe to
use. So is a kernel panic justified here, instead of not releasing the
pages back to host and logging errors for the same.


> Now, if the retval from the fw were FIRMWARE_INTERNAL_ERROR or so, then
> sure, by all means. But not for the above. All the error conditions
> above sound like the kernel has supplied the wrong range/botched command
> buffer to the firmware so there's no need to leak pages.
> Thx.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-22 01:40    [W:0.218 / U:4.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site