From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F34FE77184 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOBfW-00052x-Sw; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:14:02 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOBfV-00052E-73 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:14:01 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tOBfT-0000GC-2s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:14:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1734596037; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=wgh/xolfLZ6ggM1oTcaFTnhtJdHzvak/UbCcXgWHk0w=; b=bMo+giRjWGoW2OKrvvSVsICEdqPlcF986+BvbJY54Y7lUUYkCYFcxO6Ep9NJzBVhyf1WaR iZKM2cdel2PI42i8Q+BprEV7LKqP9j1Qp0B6WCI2yIQZM0mm881yCObj0pGJy9jzsGu8DY HkN8Q0K70BwSfDgC9HxhVQYOy18dJFQ= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-554-X8vIOUi6P_usQLfrmKYVBg-1; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 03:13:53 -0500 X-MC-Unique: X8vIOUi6P_usQLfrmKYVBg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: X8vIOUi6P_usQLfrmKYVBg Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 181E21955BF6; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.54]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F44830044C1; Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:13:44 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Michael Roth Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, eduardo@habkost.net, armbru@redhat.com, pankaj.gupta@amd.com, huibo.wang@amd.com, jroedel@suse.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] i386/sev: Add KVM_EXIT_SNP_REQ_CERTS support for certificate-fetching Message-ID: References: <20241218154939.1114831-1-michael.roth@amd.com> <20241218154939.1114831-4-michael.roth@amd.com> <20241218222951.v6yjhcd7j6uojcs4@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20241218222951.v6yjhcd7j6uojcs4@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.13 (2024-03-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.116, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 04:29:51PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:50:52PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 09:49:39AM -0600, Michael Roth wrote: > > > The GHCB specification[1] defines a VMGEXIT-based Guest Request > > > hypercall to allow an SNP guest to issue encrypted requests directly to > > > SNP firmware to do things like query the attestation report for the > > > guest. These are generally handled purely in the kernel. > > > > > > In some some cases, it's useful for the host to be able to additionally > > > supply the certificate chain for the signing key that SNP firmware uses > > > to sign these attestation reports. To allow for this, the GHCB > > > specification defines an Extended Guest Request where this certificate > > > data can be provided in a special format described in the GHCB spec. > > > This certificate data may be global or guest-specific depending on how > > > the guest was configured. Rather than providing interfaces to manage > > > these within the kernel, KVM provides a new KVM_EXIT_SNP_REQ_CERTS exit > > > to request the certificate contents from userspace. Implement support > > > for that here. > > > > > > To synchronize delivery of the certificates to the guest in a way where > > > they will not be rendered invalid by updates to SNP firmware or > > > attestation singing/endorsement keys by management tools outside the > > > purview of QEMU, it is expected by users of KVM_EXIT_SNP_REQ_CERTS to > > > obtain a shared/read lock on the certificate file prior to delivering > > > them back to KVM. Only after this will the attestation report be > > > retrieved from firmware and bundled with the certificate data, so QEMU > > > must continue to hold the file lock until KVM confirms that the > > > attestation report has been retrieved/bundled. This confirmation is done > > > by way of the kvm_immediate_exit callback infrastructure that was > > > introduced in a previous patch. > > > > > > [1] "Guest Hypervisor Communication Block (GHCB) Standardization", > > > https://www.amd.com/en/developer/sev.html > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Roth > > > --- > > > qapi/qom.json | 23 +++- > > > target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 10 ++ > > > target/i386/sev-sysemu-stub.c | 5 + > > > target/i386/sev.c | 249 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > target/i386/sev.h | 2 + > > > 5 files changed, 288 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/qapi/qom.json b/qapi/qom.json > > > index 28ce24cd8d..6eaf0e7721 100644 > > > --- a/qapi/qom.json > > > +++ b/qapi/qom.json > > > @@ -1034,6 +1034,25 @@ > > > # firmware. Set this to true to disable the use of VCEK. > > > # (default: false) (since: 9.1) > > > # > > > +# @certs-path: Path to certificate data that can be passed to guests via > > > +# SNP Extended Guest Requests. File should be in the format > > > +# described in the GHCB specification. (default: none) > > > +# (since: 10.0) > > > > Can we document the required format here explicitly, rather than expecting > > users to go searching for specs which are often practically impossible > > to find, and even harder to read & interpret ? > > It'll be difficult to summarize in a way that will be self-reliant, > since knowing the certificate format is not sufficient to make sure > it coincides with the endorsement key being used by firmware. So I can't > promise to completely reduce reliance on external specs, but at least > give a better of the format and where those external specs will come > into play in filling out the data. > > If it needs to be at least somewhat self-sufficient then that might > warrant a separate document in docs/system/i386/amd-memory-encryption.rst > or somewhere thereabouts that summarizes the whole attestation flow and > how certificates tie into that. > > Any preferences? > > > > > > diff --git a/target/i386/sev.c b/target/i386/sev.c > > > index 1a4eb1ada6..2c41bdbccf 100644 > > > --- a/target/i386/sev.c > > > +++ b/target/i386/sev.c > > > @@ -157,6 +157,9 @@ struct SevSnpGuestState { > > > char *id_auth_base64; > > > uint8_t *id_auth; > > > char *host_data; > > > + char *certs_path; > > > + int certs_fd; > > > + uint32_t certs_timeout; > > > > > > struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_start kvm_start_conf; > > > struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_finish kvm_finish_conf; > > > @@ -1355,6 +1358,215 @@ sev_snp_launch_finish(SevCommonState *sev_common) > > > } > > > } > > > > > > +static int open_certs_locked(SevSnpGuestState *sev_snp_guest) > > > +{ > > > + int fd, ret; > > > + > > > + if (sev_snp_guest->certs_fd != -1) { > > > + return 0; > > > + } > > > + > > > + fd = qemu_open(sev_snp_guest->certs_path, O_RDONLY, NULL); > > > + if (fd == -1) { > > > + error_report("Unable to open certificate blob at path %s, ret %d", > > > + sev_snp_guest->certs_path, fd); > > > + return fd; > > > + } > > > + > > > + ret = qemu_lock_fd(fd, 0, 0, false); > > > + if (ret == -EAGAIN || ret == -EACCES) { > > > + ret = -EAGAIN; > > > + goto out_close; > > > + } else if (ret) { > > > + goto out_close; > > > + } > > > > This locking scheme is likely unsafe. Consider this sequence > > > > * QEMU runs qemu_open(path) > > * External mgmt app runs unlink(path) > > * External mgmt app runs open(path) > > * External mgmt app runs lock(fd) > > * QEMU runs qemu_lock_fd(fd) > > > > QEMU has successfully acquired a lock on an FD that corresponds to a > > deleted file, not the current existing file. > > > > Avoiding this problem requires either that the external mgmt app agrees > > to *NEVER* unlink() the files under any circumstance, or for QEMU to > > run its open + lock logic in a loop, checking 'stat' and 'fstat' before > > opening and after locking, in order to detect a replaced file from its > > changed inode. > > > > I'm not inclined to rely on mgmt apps never unlink()ing as that's to > > easy to mess up IMHO. > > Yah I went into more detail in my response to Markus, but long story > short is that we are assuming mgmt is cooperative in this case, and > so as you mentioned, it would never unlink files while SNP guests are > running, but instead take an exclusive lock on them and update them in > place with the understanding that doing anything otherwise would open > a race window where guests might get stale certificates. If there's an expectation & requirement that no SNP guests are running, then IMHO this whole thing is just over-engineered. Just remove all this locking code entirely, and document that none of this must be changed while QEMU is running - which is a common requirement for a great many things on the host. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|