[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH Part2 v6 17/49] crypto: ccp: Add the SNP_{SET,GET}_EXT_CONFIG command
On 8/8/22 14:27, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> To preface, I don't want to delay this patch set, only have the
> conversation at the most appropriate place.
>>> The SEV-SNP firmware provides the SNP_CONFIG command used to set the
>>> system-wide configuration value for SNP guests. The information includes
>>> the TCB version string to be reported in guest attestation reports.
> The system-wide aspect of this makes me wonder if we can also have a
> VM instance-specific extension. This is important for the use case
> that we may see secure boot variables included in the launch
> measurement, making offline signing of the UEFI image impossible. We
> can't sign the cross-product of all UEFI builds and every user's EFI
> variables. We'd like to include an instance-specific certificate that
> specifies the platform-endorsed golden measurement of the UEFI.
> An alternative that doesn't require a change to the kernel is to just
> make this certificate fetchable from a FAMILY_ID-keyed, predetermined
> URL prefix + IMAGE_ID + '.crt', but this requires a download (and
> continuous hosting) to do something as routine as collecting an
> attestation report. It's up to the upstream community to determine if
> that is an acceptable cost to keep the complexity of a certificate
> table merge operation out of the kernel.
> The SNP API specification gives an interpretation to the data blob

That's the GHCB specification, not the SNP API.

> here as a table of GUID/offset pairs followed by data blobs that
> presumably are at the appropriate offsets into the data pages. The
> spec allows for the host to add any number of GUID/offset pairs it
> wants, with 3 specific GUIDs recommended for the AMD PSP certificate
> chain.
> The snp_guest_ext_guest_request function in ccp is what passes back
> the certificate data that was previously stored, so I'm wondering if
> it can take an extra (pointer,len) pair of VM instance certificate
> data to merge with the host certificate data before returning to the
> guest. The new required length is the sum total of both the header
> certs and instance certs. The operation to copy the data is no longer
> a memcpy but a header merge that tracks the offset shifts caused by a
> larger header and other certificates in the remaining data pages.
> I can propose my own patch on top of this v6 patch set that adds a KVM
> ioctl like KVM_{GET,SET}_INSTANCE_SNP_EXT_CONFIG and then pass along

Would it be burden to supply all the certificates, both system and per-VM,
in this KVM call? On the SNP Extended Guest Request, the hypervisor could
just check if there is a per-VM blob and return that or else return the
system-wide blob (if present).


> the stored certificate blob in the request call. I'd prefer to have
> the design agreed upon upfront though.

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-08 23:34    [W:0.203 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site