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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687F2C433FE for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229757AbiKPLuL (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:50:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60938 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233902AbiKPLto (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2022 06:49:44 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FB0131365 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 03:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NC1Dj0ks8z683fS; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:35:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:37:25 +0100 Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:37:24 +0000 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 11:37:24 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Dave Jiang CC: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/18] tools/testing/cxl: Add "passphrase secure erase" opcode support Message-ID: <20221116113724.00006171@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <166845791969.2496228.8357488385523295841.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com> <166845805415.2496228.732168029765896218.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com> <20221115110831.00001fa4@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 08:57:38 -0700 Dave Jiang wrote: > On 11/15/2022 3:08 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:34:14 -0700 > > Dave Jiang wrote: > > > >> Add support to emulate a CXL mem device support the "passphrase secure > >> erase" operation. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang > > The logic in here gives me a headache but I'm not sure it's correct yet... > > > > If you can figure out what is supposed to happen if this is called > > with Passphrase Type == master before the master passphrase has been set > > then you are doing better than me. > > > > Unlike for the User passphrase, where the language " .. and the user passphrase > > is not currently set or is not supported by the device, this value is ignored." > > to me implies we wipe the device and clear the non existent user pass phrase, > > the not set master passphrase case isn't covered as far as I can see. > > > > The user passphrase question raises a futher question (see inline) > > > > Thoughts? > > Guess this is what happens when you bolt on master passphrase support > after defining the spec without its existence, and then move it to a > different spec and try to maintain compatibility between the two in > order to not fork the hardware/firmware.... :) > > Should we treat the no passphrase set instance the same as sending a > Secure Erase (Opcode 4401h)? And then the only case left is no master > pass set but user pass is set. > > if (!master_pass_set && pass_type_master) { > if (user_pass_set) > return -EINVAL; > else > secure_erase; > } Let's do this for now, but also gather up a set of questions / clarifications to take to CXL SSWG. Can gather that on linux-cxl as discussing public stuff only, then one of us can have the pleasure of seeking clarifications in SSWG / possibly leading to future spec changes / Errata. Jonathan > > > > > Other than that some suggestions inline but nothing functional, so up to you. > > Either way > > > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron > > > >> --- > >> tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > >> index 90607597b9a4..fc28f7cc147a 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > >> +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > >> @@ -362,6 +362,68 @@ static int mock_unlock_security(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static int mock_passphrase_secure_erase(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, > >> + struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) > >> +{ > >> + struct cxl_mock_mem_pdata *mdata = dev_get_platdata(cxlds->dev); > >> + struct cxl_pass_erase *erase; > >> + > >> + if (cmd->size_in != sizeof(*erase)) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + > >> + if (cmd->size_out != 0) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + > >> + erase = cmd->payload_in; > >> + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_FROZEN) { > >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT && > >> + erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER) { > >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PLIMIT && > >> + erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER) { > >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } > >> + > >> + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER && > >> + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PASS_SET) { > >> + if (memcmp(mdata->master_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { > >> + master_plimit_check(mdata); > >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } > >> + mdata->master_limit = 0; > >> + mdata->user_limit = 0; > >> + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; > >> + memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); > >> + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_LOCKED; > >> + return 0; > >> + } > > What to do if the masterpass phrase isn't set? > > Even if we return 0, I'd slightly prefer to see that done locally so refactor as > > if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER) { > > if (!(mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATATE_MASTER_PASS_SET)) { > > return 0; /* ? */ > > if (memcmp)... > > } else { /* CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER */ //or make it a switch. > > > >> + > >> + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER && > >> + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET) { > > > > Given we aren't actually scrambling the encryption keys (as we don't have any ;) > > it doesn't make a functional difference, but to line up with the spec, I would > > consider changing this to explicitly have the path for no user passphrase set. > > > > if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER) { > > if (mdata->security_state & CXL_MEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET) { > > if (memcmp(mdata->user_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { > > user_plimit_check(mdata); > > cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; > > return -ENXIO; > > } > > > > mdata->user_limit = 0; > > mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; > > memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); > > } > > /* Change encryption keys */ > > return 0; > > } > > > >> + if (memcmp(mdata->user_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { > >> + user_plimit_check(mdata); > >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; > >> + return -ENXIO; > >> + } > >> + > >> + mdata->user_limit = 0; > >> + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; > >> + memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); > >> + return 0; > >> + } > >> + > >> + return 0; > > > > With above changes you can never reach here. > > > >> +} > >> + > >> static int mock_get_lsa(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) > >> { > >> struct cxl_mbox_get_lsa *get_lsa = cmd->payload_in; > >> @@ -470,6 +532,9 @@ static int cxl_mock_mbox_send(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd * > >> case CXL_MBOX_OP_UNLOCK: > >> rc = mock_unlock_security(cxlds, cmd); > >> break; > >> + case CXL_MBOX_OP_PASSPHRASE_SECURE_ERASE: > >> + rc = mock_passphrase_secure_erase(cxlds, cmd); > >> + break; > >> default: > >> break; > >> } > >> > >> > >