Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Lukas Wunner]

[cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:
> > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > worry about anything in the guest.
> 
> There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.

CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:

https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe

It will allow for authentication of PCIe devices.  Goal is to submit
this quarter (Q1).  Afterwards we'll look into retrieving measurements
via CMA/SPDM and bringing up IDE encryption.

It's a kernel-native implementation which uses the existing crypto and
keys infrastructure and is wired into the appropriate places in the
PCI core to authenticate devices on enumeration and reauthenticate
when CMA/SPDM state is lost (after resume from D3cold, after a
Secondary Bus Reset and after a DPC-induced Hot Reset).

The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
be it for "confidential computing" or something else.

Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
supported as well.

I would like to stress that this particular effort is a collaboration
of multiple vendors.  It is decidedly not a single vendor trying to
shoehorn something into upstream, so the criticism that has been
leveled upthread against other things does not apply here.

The Plumbers BoF you're referring to was co-authored by Jonathan Cameron
and me and its purpose was precisely to have an open discussion and
align on an approach that works for everyone:

https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1304/


>    a) there's no good way to authenticate a PCI device yet
>      - any nasty device can claim to have a given PCI ID.

CMA/SPDM prescribes that the Subject Alternative Name of the device
certificate contains the Vendor ID, Device ID, Subsystem Vendor ID,
Subsystem ID, Class Code, Revision and Serial Number (PCIe r6.0
sec 6.31.3).

Thus a forged Device ID in the Configuration Space Header will result
in authentication failure.

Thanks,

Lukas

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Lukas Wunner (lukas@wunner.de) wrote:
> [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> 
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:
> > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > worry about anything in the guest.
> > 
> > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.
> 
> CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
>
> https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe

Thanks for the pointer - I'll go and hunt down that spec.

> It will allow for authentication of PCIe devices.  Goal is to submit
> this quarter (Q1).  Afterwards we'll look into retrieving measurements
> via CMA/SPDM and bringing up IDE encryption.
> 
> It's a kernel-native implementation which uses the existing crypto and
> keys infrastructure and is wired into the appropriate places in the
> PCI core to authenticate devices on enumeration and reauthenticate
> when CMA/SPDM state is lost (after resume from D3cold, after a
> Secondary Bus Reset and after a DPC-induced Hot Reset).
> 
> The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> be it for "confidential computing" or something else.

As Samuel asks about who is doing the challenge; but I guess there are
also things like what happens when the host controls intermediate
switches and BAR access and when only VFs are passed to guests.

> Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> supported as well.
> 
> I would like to stress that this particular effort is a collaboration
> of multiple vendors.  It is decidedly not a single vendor trying to
> shoehorn something into upstream, so the criticism that has been
> leveled upthread against other things does not apply here.
> 
> The Plumbers BoF you're referring to was co-authored by Jonathan Cameron
> and me and its purpose was precisely to have an open discussion and
> align on an approach that works for everyone:
> 
> https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1304/
> 
> 
> >    a) there's no good way to authenticate a PCI device yet
> >      - any nasty device can claim to have a given PCI ID.
> 
> CMA/SPDM prescribes that the Subject Alternative Name of the device
> certificate contains the Vendor ID, Device ID, Subsystem Vendor ID,
> Subsystem ID, Class Code, Revision and Serial Number (PCIe r6.0
> sec 6.31.3).
> 
> Thus a forged Device ID in the Configuration Space Header will result
> in authentication failure.

Good!  It'll be nice when people figure out the CoCo integration for
that; I'm still guessing it's a little way off until we get hardware
for that.

Dave

> Thanks,
> 
> Lukas
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:48:50 +0000
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com> wrote:

> * Lukas Wunner (lukas@wunner.de) wrote:
> > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:  
> > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > worry about anything in the guest.  
> > > 
> > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.  
> > 
> > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe  
> 
> Thanks for the pointer - I'll go and hunt down that spec.
> 
> > It will allow for authentication of PCIe devices.  Goal is to submit
> > this quarter (Q1).  Afterwards we'll look into retrieving measurements
> > via CMA/SPDM and bringing up IDE encryption.
> > 
> > It's a kernel-native implementation which uses the existing crypto and
> > keys infrastructure and is wired into the appropriate places in the
> > PCI core to authenticate devices on enumeration and reauthenticate
> > when CMA/SPDM state is lost (after resume from D3cold, after a
> > Secondary Bus Reset and after a DPC-induced Hot Reset).
> > 
> > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.  
> 
> As Samuel asks about who is doing the challenge; but I guess there are
> also things like what happens when the host controls intermediate
> switches and BAR access and when only VFs are passed to guests.

Hmm.  Bringing switches into the TCB came up at Plumbers.
You can get partly around that using selective IDE (end to end encryption)
but it has some disadvantages.

You can attest the switches if you don't mind bringing them into TCB
(one particularly cloud vendor person was very strongly against doing so!)
but they don't have nice VF type abstractions so the switch attestation
needs to go through someone who isn't the guest.

> 
> > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > supported as well.
> > 
> > I would like to stress that this particular effort is a collaboration
> > of multiple vendors.  It is decidedly not a single vendor trying to
> > shoehorn something into upstream, so the criticism that has been
> > leveled upthread against other things does not apply here.
> > 
> > The Plumbers BoF you're referring to was co-authored by Jonathan Cameron
> > and me and its purpose was precisely to have an open discussion and
> > align on an approach that works for everyone:
> > 
> > https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1304/
> > 
> >   
> > >    a) there's no good way to authenticate a PCI device yet
> > >      - any nasty device can claim to have a given PCI ID.  
> > 
> > CMA/SPDM prescribes that the Subject Alternative Name of the device
> > certificate contains the Vendor ID, Device ID, Subsystem Vendor ID,
> > Subsystem ID, Class Code, Revision and Serial Number (PCIe r6.0
> > sec 6.31.3).
> > 
> > Thus a forged Device ID in the Configuration Space Header will result
> > in authentication failure.  
> 
> Good!  It'll be nice when people figure out the CoCo integration for
> that; I'm still guessing it's a little way off until we get hardware
> for that.

FYI: We have QEMU using the DMTF reference implementation (libspdm/spdm-emu)
if anyone wants to play with it.  Avery Design folk did the qemu bridging to that
a while back. Not upstream yet*, but I'm carrying it on my staging CXL qemu tree.

https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/commit/8d0ad6bc84a5d96039aaf8f929c60b9f7ba02832

In combination with Lucas' tree mentioned earlier you can get all the handshaking
to happen to attest against certs. Don't think we are yet actually checking the
IDs but trivial to add (mainly a case of generating right certs with the
Subject Alternative Name set).

Jonathan

* It's a hack using the socket interface of spdm-emu tools - at some point I need
to start a discussion on QEMU list / with dmtf tools group on whether to fix
libspdm to actually work as a shared library, or cope with the current approach
(crossing fingers the socket interface remains stable in spdm-emu).

> 
> Dave
> 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Lukas
> >   

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Samuel Ortiz]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:48:50AM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Lukas Wunner (lukas@wunner.de) wrote:
> > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:
> > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > worry about anything in the guest.
> > > 
> > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.
> > 
> > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe
> 
> Thanks for the pointer - I'll go and hunt down that spec.
> 
> > It will allow for authentication of PCIe devices.  Goal is to submit
> > this quarter (Q1).  Afterwards we'll look into retrieving measurements
> > via CMA/SPDM and bringing up IDE encryption.
> > 
> > It's a kernel-native implementation which uses the existing crypto and
> > keys infrastructure and is wired into the appropriate places in the
> > PCI core to authenticate devices on enumeration and reauthenticate
> > when CMA/SPDM state is lost (after resume from D3cold, after a
> > Secondary Bus Reset and after a DPC-induced Hot Reset).
> > 
> > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> 
> As Samuel asks about who is doing the challenge; but I guess there are
> also things like what happens when the host controls intermediate
> switches 

You'd want to protect that through IDE selective streams.

> and BAR access and when only VFs are passed to guests.

TDISP aims at addressing that afaiu. Once the VF (aka TDI) is locked,
any changes to its BAR(s) or any PF MMIO that would affect the VF would
get the VF back to unlocked (and let the guest reject it).

Cheers,
Samuel.

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:24:32 +0100
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:

> Hi Lukas,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> 
> > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:  
> > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > worry about anything in the guest.  
> > >
> > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.  
> >
> > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe  
> 
> Nice, thanks a lot for that.
> 
> 
> 
> > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> >
> > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > supported as well.
> >  
> 
> This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> nor for running the SPDM challenge?

There are lots of possible models for this. One simple option if the assigned
VF supports it is a CMA instance per VF. That will let the guest
do full attestation including measurement of whether the device is
appropriately locked down so the hypervisor can't mess with
configuration that affects the guest (without a reset anyway and that
is guest visible). Whether anyone builds that option isn't yet clear
though. If they do, Lukas' work should work there as well as for the
host OS. (Note I'm not a security expert so may be missing something!)

For extra fun, why should the device trust the host? Mutual authentication
fun (there are usecases where that matters)

There are way more complex options supported in PCIe TDISP (Tee Device
security interface protocols). Anyone have an visibility of open solutions
that make use of that? May be too new.

Jonathan


> 
> Cheers,
> Samuel.
> 

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Samuel Ortiz]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:58:47AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:24:32 +0100
> Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Lukas,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:  
> > > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > > worry about anything in the guest.  
> > > >
> > > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.  
> > >
> > > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe  
> > 
> > Nice, thanks a lot for that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> > >
> > > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > > supported as well.
> > >  
> > 
> > This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> > support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> > of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> > nor for running the SPDM challenge?
> 
> There are lots of possible models for this. One simple option if the assigned
> VF supports it is a CMA instance per VF. That will let the guest
> do full attestation including measurement of whether the device is
> appropriately locked down so the hypervisor can't mess with
> configuration that affects the guest (without a reset anyway and that
> is guest visible). 

So the VF would be directly assigned to the guest, and the guest kernel
would create a CMA instance for the VF, and do the SPDM authentication
(based on a guest provided trusted root certificate). I think one
security concern with that approach is assigning the VF to the
(potentially confidential) guest address space without the guest being
able to attest of the device trustworthiness first. That's what TDISP is
aiming at fixing (establish a secure SPDM between the confidential guest
and the device, lock the device from the guest, attest and then enable
DMA). 

> Whether anyone builds that option isn't yet clear
> though. If they do, Lukas' work should work there as well as for the
> host OS. (Note I'm not a security expert so may be missing something!)
> 
> For extra fun, why should the device trust the host? Mutual authentication
> fun (there are usecases where that matters)
> 
> There are way more complex options supported in PCIe TDISP (Tee Device
> security interface protocols). Anyone have an visibility of open solutions
> that make use of that? May be too new.

It's still a PCI ECN, so quite new indeed.
FWIW the rust spdm crate [1] implements the TDISP state machine.

Cheers,
Samuel.

[1] https://github.com/jyao1/rust-spdm
> 

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:15:05 +0100
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:58:47AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:24:32 +0100
> > Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Lukas,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:    
> > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:    
> > > > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > > > worry about anything in the guest.    
> > > > >
> > > > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.    
> > > >
> > > > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe    
> > > 
> > > Nice, thanks a lot for that.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > > > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > > > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> > > >
> > > > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > > > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > > > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > > > supported as well.
> > > >    
> > > 
> > > This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> > > support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> > > of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> > > nor for running the SPDM challenge?  
> > 
> > There are lots of possible models for this. One simple option if the assigned
> > VF supports it is a CMA instance per VF. That will let the guest
> > do full attestation including measurement of whether the device is
> > appropriately locked down so the hypervisor can't mess with
> > configuration that affects the guest (without a reset anyway and that
> > is guest visible).   
> 
> So the VF would be directly assigned to the guest, and the guest kernel
> would create a CMA instance for the VF, and do the SPDM authentication
> (based on a guest provided trusted root certificate). I think one
> security concern with that approach is assigning the VF to the
> (potentially confidential) guest address space without the guest being
> able to attest of the device trustworthiness first. That's what TDISP is
> aiming at fixing (establish a secure SPDM between the confidential guest
> and the device, lock the device from the guest, attest and then enable
> DMA). 

Agreed, TDISP is more comprehensive, but also much more complex with
more moving parts that we don't really have yet.

Depending on your IOMMU design (+ related stuff) and interaction with
the secure guest, you might be able to block any rogue DMA until
after attestation / lock down checks even if the Hypervisor was letting
it through.

> 
> > Whether anyone builds that option isn't yet clear
> > though. If they do, Lukas' work should work there as well as for the
> > host OS. (Note I'm not a security expert so may be missing something!)
> > 
> > For extra fun, why should the device trust the host? Mutual authentication
> > fun (there are usecases where that matters)
> > 
> > There are way more complex options supported in PCIe TDISP (Tee Device
> > security interface protocols). Anyone have an visibility of open solutions
> > that make use of that? May be too new.  
> 
> It's still a PCI ECN, so quite new indeed.
> FWIW the rust spdm crate [1] implements the TDISP state machine.

Cool. thanks for the reference.
> 
> Cheers,
> Samuel.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/jyao1/rust-spdm
> >   

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Samuel Ortiz]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:07:29PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:15:05 +0100
> Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:58:47AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:24:32 +0100
> > > Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Hi Lukas,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:    
> > > > > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:    
> > > > > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > > > > worry about anything in the guest.    
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > > > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > > > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > > > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > > > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.    
> > > > >
> > > > > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe    
> > > > 
> > > > Nice, thanks a lot for that.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > > > > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > > > > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > > > > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > > > > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > > > > supported as well.
> > > > >    
> > > > 
> > > > This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> > > > support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> > > > of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> > > > nor for running the SPDM challenge?  
> > > 
> > > There are lots of possible models for this. One simple option if the assigned
> > > VF supports it is a CMA instance per VF. That will let the guest
> > > do full attestation including measurement of whether the device is
> > > appropriately locked down so the hypervisor can't mess with
> > > configuration that affects the guest (without a reset anyway and that
> > > is guest visible).   
> > 
> > So the VF would be directly assigned to the guest, and the guest kernel
> > would create a CMA instance for the VF, and do the SPDM authentication
> > (based on a guest provided trusted root certificate). I think one
> > security concern with that approach is assigning the VF to the
> > (potentially confidential) guest address space without the guest being
> > able to attest of the device trustworthiness first. That's what TDISP is
> > aiming at fixing (establish a secure SPDM between the confidential guest
> > and the device, lock the device from the guest, attest and then enable
> > DMA). 
> 
> Agreed, TDISP is more comprehensive, but also much more complex with
> more moving parts that we don't really have yet.
> 
> Depending on your IOMMU design (+ related stuff) and interaction with
> the secure guest, you might be able to block any rogue DMA until
> after attestation / lock down checks even if the Hypervisor was letting
> it through.

Provided that the guest or, in the TDX and AP-TEE cases, the TSM have
protected access to the IOMMU, yes. But then the implementation becomes
platform specific.

Cheers,
Samuel.

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Lukas Wunner]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:24:32AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe
> > 
> > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> >
> > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > supported as well.
> 
> This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> nor for running the SPDM challenge?

As long as a device is passed through to a guest, the guest owns
that device.  It is the guest's prerogative and duty to perform
CMA/SPDM authentication on its own behalf.  If the guest uses
memory encryption via TDX or SEV, key material established through
a Diffie-Hellman exchange between guest and device is invisible
to the host.  Consequently using that key material for IDE encryption
protects device accesses from the guest against snooping by the host.

SPDM authentication consists of a sequence of exchanges, the first
being GET_VERSION.  When a responder (=device) receives a GET_VERSION
request, it resets the connection and all internal state related to
that connection.  (SPDM 1.2.1 margin no 185: "a Requester can issue
a GET_VERSION to a Responder to reset a connection at any time";
see also SPDM 1.1.0 margin no 161 for details.)

Thus, even though the host may have authenticated the device,
once it's passed through to a guest and the guest performs
authentication again, SPDM state on the device is reset.

I'll amend the patches so that the host refrains from performing
reauthentication as long as a device is passed through.  The host
has no business mutating SPDM state on the device once ownership
has passed to the guest.

The first few SPDM exchanges are transmitted in the clear,
so the host can eavesdrop on the negotiated algorithms,
exchanged certificates and nonces.  However the host cannot
successfully modify the exchanged data due to the man in the middle
protection afforded by SPDM:  The challenge/response hash is
computed over the concatenation of the exchanged messages,
so modification of the messages by a man in the middle leads
to authentication failure.

Obviously the host can DoS guest access to the device by modifying
exchanged messages, but there are much simpler ways for it to
do that, say, by clearing Bus Master Enable or Memory Space Enable
bits in the Command Register.  DoS attacks from the host against
the guest cannot be part of the threat model at this point.

Thanks,

Lukas

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> Obviously the host can DoS guest access to the device by modifying
> exchanged messages, but there are much simpler ways for it to
> do that, say, by clearing Bus Master Enable or Memory Space Enable
> bits in the Command Register.

There's a single key per guest though, isn't it? Also used
for regular memory?


-- 
MST

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Lukas Wunner]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:25:21AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > Obviously the host can DoS guest access to the device by modifying
> > exchanged messages, but there are much simpler ways for it to
> > do that, say, by clearing Bus Master Enable or Memory Space Enable
> > bits in the Command Register.
> 
> There's a single key per guest though, isn't it? Also used
> for regular memory?

The current design is to have a global keyring (per kernel, i.e. per
guest).  A device presents a certificate chain and the first certificate
in that chain needs to be signed by one of the certificates on the keyring.

This is completely independent from the key used for memory encryption.

A device can have up to 8 certificate chains (called "slots" in the
SPDM spec) and I've implemented it such that all slots are iterated
and validation is considered to be successful as soon as a slot with
a valid signature is found.

We can discuss having a per-device keyring if anyone thinks it makes
sense.

The PCISIG's idea seems to be that each vendor of PCIe cards publishes
a trusted root certificate and users would then have to keep all those
vendor certificates in their global keyring.  This follows from the
last paragraph of PCIe r6.0.1 sec 6.31.3, which says "it is strongly
recommended that authentication requesters [i.e. the kernel] confirm
that the information provided in the Subject Alternative Name entry
[of the device's leaf certificate] is signed by the vendor indicated
by the Vendor ID."

The astute reader will notice that for this to work, the Vendor ID
must be included in the trusted root certificate in a machine-readable
way.  Unfortunately the PCIe Base Spec fails to specify that.
So I don't know how to associate a trusted root certificate with a
Vendor ID.

I'll report this and several other gaps I've found in the spec to the
editor at the PCISIG so that they can be filled in a future revision.

Thanks,

Lukas

Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Samuel Ortiz]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 04:44:49PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:24:32AM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> > > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe
> > > 
> > > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> > >
> > > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > > supported as well.
> > 
> > This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> > support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> > of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> > nor for running the SPDM challenge?
> 
> As long as a device is passed through to a guest, the guest owns
> that device.  

I agree. On a SRIOV setup, the host typically owns the PF and assigns
VFs to the guests. Devices must be enlightened to guarantee that once
one of their VFs/interfaces is passed to a trusted VM, it can no longer
be modified by anything untrusted (e.g. the hypervisor).

> It is the guest's prerogative and duty to perform
> CMA/SPDM authentication on its own behalf.  If the guest uses
> memory encryption via TDX or SEV, key material established through
> a Diffie-Hellman exchange between guest and device is invisible
> to the host.  Consequently using that key material for IDE encryption
> protects device accesses from the guest against snooping by the host.

On confidential computing platforms where a security manager (e.g.
Intel TDX module) manages the confidential guests, the IDE key
management and stream settings would be handled by this manager. In
other words, the SPDM requester would not be a Linux kernel.
FWIW, Intel recently published an interesting description of TEE-IO
enabling with TDX [1].

> SPDM authentication consists of a sequence of exchanges, the first
> being GET_VERSION.  When a responder (=device) receives a GET_VERSION
> request, it resets the connection and all internal state related to
> that connection.  (SPDM 1.2.1 margin no 185: "a Requester can issue
> a GET_VERSION to a Responder to reset a connection at any time";
> see also SPDM 1.1.0 margin no 161 for details.)
> 
> Thus, even though the host may have authenticated the device,
> once it's passed through to a guest and the guest performs
> authentication again, SPDM state on the device is reset.
> 
> I'll amend the patches so that the host refrains from performing
> reauthentication as long as a device is passed through.  The host
> has no business mutating SPDM state on the device once ownership
> has passed to the guest.
> 
> The first few SPDM exchanges are transmitted in the clear,
> so the host can eavesdrop on the negotiated algorithms,
> exchanged certificates and nonces.  However the host cannot
> successfully modify the exchanged data due to the man in the middle
> protection afforded by SPDM:  The challenge/response hash is
> computed over the concatenation of the exchanged messages,
> so modification of the messages by a man in the middle leads
> to authentication failure.

Right, I was not concerned by the challenge messages integrity but by
trusting the host with verifying the response and validating the device
cert chains.

> Obviously the host can DoS guest access to the device by modifying
> exchanged messages, but there are much simpler ways for it to
> do that, say, by clearing Bus Master Enable or Memory Space Enable
> bits in the Command Register.  DoS attacks from the host against
> the guest cannot be part of the threat model at this point.

Yes, the host can DoS the guest at anytime it wants and in multiple
ways. It's definitely out of the confidential computing thread model at
least.

Cheers,
Samuel.

[1] https://cdrdv2-public.intel.com/742542/software-enabling-for-tdx-tee-io-fixed.pdf