Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD)

[Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>]

On 05/09/2016 10:13 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/05/2016 20:31, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> And did the SEV implementation remember to encrypt the guest register
>> state?  Because, if not, everything of importance will leak out
>> through the VMCB and/or GPRs.
> 
> No, it doesn't.  And SEV is very limited unless you paravirtualize
> everything.
> 
> For example, the hypervisor needs to read some instruction bytes from
> memory, and instruction bytes are always encrypted (15.34.5 in the APM).
>  So you're pretty much restricted to IN/OUT operations (not even
> INS/OUTS) on emulated (non-assigned) devices, paravirtualized MSRs, and
> hypercalls.  These are the only operations that connect the guest and
> the hypervisor, where the vmexit doesn't have the need to e.g. walk
> guest page tables (also always encrypted).  It possibly can be made to
> work once the guest boots, and a modern UEFI firmware probably can cope
> with it too just like a kernel can, but you need to ensure that your
> hardware has no memory BARs for example.  And I/O port space is not very
> abundant.

The instruction bytes stored in the VMCB at offset 0xd0 for a data
side #NPF are stored un-encrypted (which is not clearly documented in
the APM). This allows for the hypervisor to perform MMIO on emulated
devices. Because the hardware provides enough information on VMEXIT
events, such as exit codes, decode assist, etc., the hypervisor has
the information it needs to perform the operation without having to
read the guest pagetables and/or the guest instruction stream from
guest memory. There are a few minor corner cases (e.g. rep ins) and
there will be more info on those when the SEV patches are submitted.

> 
> Even in order to emulate I/O ports or RDMSR/WRMSR or process hypercalls,
> the hypervisor needs to read the GPRs.  The VMCB doesn't store guest
> GPRs, not even on SEV-enabled processors.  Accordingly, the hypervisor
> has access to the guest GPRs on every exit.

In this initial version of SEV support the hardware does not encrypt
the guest save state and the hypervisor does have access to the GPRs.

> 
> In general, SEV provides mitigation only.  Even if the hypervisor cannot
> write known plaintext directly to memory, an accomplice virtual machine
> can e.g. use the network to spray the attacked VM's memory.  At least

Can you elaborate further on this? The accomplice VM will not have
access to the encryption key of the target VM and cannot accomplish
any spraying that the hypervisor itself cannot do.

> it's not as easy as "disable NX under the guest's feet and redirect RIP"
> (pte.nx is reserved if efer.nxe=0, all you get is a #PF).  But the
> hypervisor can still disable SMEP and SMAP, it can use hardware
> breakpoints to leak information through the registers, and it can do all
> the other attacks you mentioned.  If AMD had rdrand/rdseed, it could
> replace the output with not so random values, and so on.

AMD added support for the rdrand in some of the later fam16h models.

> 
> It's surely better than nothing, but "encryption that really is nothing
> more than mitigation" is pretty weird.  I'm waiting for cloud vendors to
> sell this as the best thing since sliced bread, when in reality it's
> just mitigation.  I wonder how wise it is to merge SEV in its current
> state---and since security is not my specialty I am definitely looking
> for advice on this.
> 

In this first generation of SEV, we are targeting a threat model very
similar to the one used by SMEP and SMAP. Specifically, SEV protects a
guest from a benign but vulnerable hypervisor, where a malicious guest
or unprivileged process exploits a system/hypervisor interface in an
attempt to read or modify the guest's memory.  But, like SMEP and SMAP,
if an attacker has the ability to arbitrarily execute code in the
kernel, he would be able to circumvent the control. AMD has a vision
for this generation of SEV to be foundational to future generations
that defend against stronger attacks.

Thanks,
Tom

> Paolo
> 
> ps: I'm now reminded of this patch:
> 
>     commit dab429a798a8ab3377136e09dda55ea75a41648d
>     Author: David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@amd.com>
>     Date:   Mon Mar 2 13:43:37 2015 -0600
> 
>     kvm: svm: make wbinvd faster
> 
>     No need to re-decode WBINVD since we know what it is from the
>     intercept.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@amd.com>
>     [extracted from larger unlrelated patch, forward ported,
>      tested,style cleanup]
>     Signed-off-by: Joel Schopp <joel.schopp@amd.com>
>     Reviewed-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
> 
> and I wonder if the larger unlrelated patch had anything to do with SEV!
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>