[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/4] crypto: ccp - Name -1 return value as SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL
    On 12/5/22 11:05, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
    > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:37 AM Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 10:58:39AM -0800, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
    >>> It doesn't always overwrite psp_ret, such as the initial error checking.
    >>> The value remains uninitialized for -ENODEV, -EBUSY, -EINVAL.
    >>> Thus *error in __sev_platform_init_locked can be set to uninitialized
    >>> memory if psp_ret is not first initialized.
    >> Lemme see if I understand it correctly: you wanna signal that all early
    >> return cases in __sev_do_cmd_locked() are such that no firmware was
    >> called?
    >> I.e., everything before the first iowrite into the command buffer?
    >> But then the commit message says:
    >> "The PSP can return a "firmware error" code of -1 in circumstances where
    >> the PSP is not actually called."
    >> which is confusing. How can the PSP return something if it wasn't called?
    >> Or you mean those cases above where it would fail on some of the checks
    >> before issuing a SEV command? I think you do...
    >> So I see Tom has ACKed this but I have to ask: is the SEV spec not going
    >> to use -1 ever?
    > I'll confirm with Tom, since he's changing the GHCB spec for the
    > throttling value.

    The SEV API error codes are 16-bits in size, so you'll never see a -1.

    >> Also, if this behavior is going to be user-visible, where are we
    >> documenting it? Especially if nothing in the kernel is looking at
    >> that value but only assigning it to a retval which gets looked at by
    >> userspace. Especially then this should be documented.
    >> Dunno, maybe somewhere in Documentation/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst or
    >> maybe Tom would have a better idea.
    > Agreed it should be in both the Linux documentation and the GHCB spec.

    Linux documentation, yes, GHCB spec, no.


    >>> That error points to the kernel copy of the user's argument struct,
    >>> which the ioctl always copies back. In the case of those error codes
    >>> then, without SEV_RET_NO_FW_CALL, user space will get uninitialized
    >>> kernel memory.
    >> Right, but having a return value which means "firmware wasn't called"
    >> sounds weird. Why does userspace care?
    > Arguably it shouldn't ever get this value. We're just not very
    > selective when we copy back the kernel copy of the ioctl argument.
    > In all cases user space should treat the value as undefined, but still
    > we don't want to leak uninitialized kernel stack values.
    > Host driver: only on platform init, should just see the negative error
    > value and not try to interpret the fw_err in the argument.
    > Still the data is copied back and therefore should not be
    > uninitialized kernel memory.
    > Possible name: SEV_RET_UNDEFINED, or a return value -1 anyway with a
    > comment that the argument is undefined.
    > Guest driver: The host is issuing a guest request on behalf of the
    > guest using patch 4/4 of this series.
    > The guest is responsible for keeping the sequence number in sync with
    > the PSP, so we want to track if the ghcb_hv_call completed
    > successfully to know we should continue with the incremented IV.
    > Otherwise we run the risk of the sequence numbers getting out of sync
    > and we lock down the VMPCK.
    > The guest driver actually sets exitinfo2 to an undocumented 0xff
    > initial value just in case.
    > =If the host doesn't write back a documented EXIT_INFO_2 value like
    > invalid_len or throttled, then the kernel will emit a log with the
    > initial value 0xff (or -1 after this patch).
    > I've changed it to -1 to name the same kind of error across host and
    > guest: the communication with the PSP didn't complete successfully, so
    > the "error" value is not from the PSP.
    > This value can also get returned to user space during a -ENOTTY result.
    > We can call this NO_FW_CALL or UNDEFINED. I have no real preference.
    > Whatever value we set initially, the VMM can overwrite exitinfo2
    > during the ghcb_hv_call.
    > I'd rather that the "undefined" values were the same across both,
    > because the guest is merely receiving a value from the host's PSP
    > driver (or should be).
    > It keeps the enum for return values a bit tidier and not concerned
    > with whether the value is viewed from the host or guest.
    > I can see an argument for not using the PSP header for its enum type
    > and instead defining and documenting and using the separate the 0xff
    > value elsewhere, but this seemed as good a place as any.
    >> I mean, you can just as well return any of the negative values -ENODEV,
    >> -EBUSY, -EINVAL too, depending on where you exit. Having three different
    >> retvals could tell you where exactly it failed, even.
    > That's true, those values are already being returned to user space as
    > the result of the ioctl.
    >> But the question remains: why does userspace needs to know that the
    >> failure happened and firmware wasn't called, as long as it is getting
    >> something negative to signal an error?
    > I hope the above discussion is clear that it's purely a defined
    > "undefined" because being pickier about what to copy_to_user during
    > exceptional circumstances in order to not overwrite the user's fw_err
    > value seems an unnecessary amount of code.
    >> Thx.
    >> --
    >> Regards/Gruss,
    >> Boris.

     \ /
      Last update: 2022-12-06 21:37    [W:3.375 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site