From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
To: Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/4] s390x: uv-guest: Add attestation tests
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 18:37:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220203183751.21c402ac@p-imbrenda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220203091935.2716-5-seiden@linux.ibm.com>
On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:19:35 +0000
Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Adds several tests to verify correct error paths of attestation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> lib/s390x/asm/uv.h | 5 +-
> s390x/uv-guest.c | 174 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h b/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h
> index 7afbcffd..7fe55052 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/uv.h
> @@ -108,7 +108,10 @@ struct uv_cb_qui {
> u8 reserved88[158 - 136]; /* 0x0088 */
> uint16_t max_guest_cpus; /* 0x009e */
> u64 uv_feature_indications; /* 0x00a0 */
> - u8 reserveda8[200 - 168]; /* 0x00a8 */
> + u8 reserveda8[224 - 168]; /* 0x00a8 */
please use uint*_t types everywhere. as you notice, we are already
inconsistent, so let's just use the new ones for all new code
> + u64 supported_att_hdr_versions; /* 0x00e0 */
> + u64 supported_paf; /* 0x00e8 */
> + u8 reservedf0[256 - 240]; /* 0x00f0 */
> } __attribute__((packed)) __attribute__((aligned(8)));
>
> struct uv_cb_cgc {
> diff --git a/s390x/uv-guest.c b/s390x/uv-guest.c
> index 97ae4687..3fca9d21 100644
> --- a/s390x/uv-guest.c
> +++ b/s390x/uv-guest.c
> @@ -2,10 +2,11 @@
> /*
> * Guest Ultravisor Call tests
> *
> - * Copyright (c) 2020 IBM Corp
> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2020, 2022
> *
> * Authors:
> * Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> + * Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>
> */
>
> #include <libcflat.h>
> @@ -53,6 +54,15 @@ static void test_priv(void)
> check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> + report_prefix_push("attest");
> + uvcb.cmd = UVC_CMD_ATTESTATION;
> + uvcb.len = sizeof(struct uv_cb_attest);
> + expect_pgm_int();
> + enter_pstate();
> + uv_call_once(0, (u64)&uvcb);
please use uint*_t types :)
> + check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
>
> @@ -111,7 +121,168 @@ static void test_sharing(void)
> cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> report(cc == 0 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_EXECUTED, "unshare");
> report_prefix_pop();
> +}
> +
> +#define ARCB_VERSION_1 0x0100
> +#define ARCB_HMAC_SHA512 1
> +/* arcb with one key slot and no nonce */
> +struct uv_arcb_v1 {
> + uint64_t reserved0; /* 0x0000 */
> + uint32_t req_ver; /* 0x0008 */
> + uint32_t req_len; /* 0x000c */
> + uint8_t iv[12]; /*
> 0x0010 */
> + uint32_t reserved1c; /* 0x001c */
> + uint8_t reserved20[7]; /*
> 0x0020 */
> + uint8_t nks; /* 0x0027
> */
> + uint32_t reserved28; /* 0x0028 */
> + uint32_t sea; /* 0x002c */
> + uint64_t plaint_att_flags; /* 0x0030 */
> + uint32_t meas_alg_id; /* 0x0038 */
> + uint32_t reserved3c; /* 0x003c */
> + uint8_t cpk[160]; /* 0x0040 */
> + uint8_t key_slot[80]; /*
> 0x00e0 */
> + uint8_t meas_key[64]; /*
> 0x0130 */
> + uint8_t tag[16]; /* 0x0170 */
> +} __attribute__((packed));
> +
> +static void test_attest_v1(u64 supported_paf)
> +{
> + struct uv_cb_attest uvcb = {
> + .header.cmd = UVC_CMD_ATTESTATION,
> + .header.len = sizeof(uvcb),
> + };
> + struct uv_arcb_v1 *arcb = (void *)page;
> + uint64_t measurement = page + sizeof(*arcb);
> + size_t measurement_size = 64;
> + uint64_t additional = measurement + measurement_size;
> + size_t additional_size = 32;
I wonder it it would be easier to create a struct with an embedded
struct uv_arcb_v1 to represent the measurement and the additional data.
that way you won't need to do all these hacky calculations and magic
numbers, you could just do something like
measurement = (uint64_t)&arcb_extended.measurement;
which, while longer, is probably easier to understand.
and the sizes maybe could become #defines
> + uint64_t plaint_att_flags = 1ULL << 61;
> + int cc;
> +
> + memset((void *) page, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
please no extra space between the ) and the p
> +
> + /* create a minimal arcb/uvcb such that FW has everything to start unsealing the request. */
> + arcb->req_ver = ARCB_VERSION_1;
> + arcb->req_len = sizeof(*arcb);
> + arcb->nks = 1;
> + arcb->sea = sizeof(arcb->meas_key);
> + arcb->plaint_att_flags = plaint_att_flags;
> + arcb->meas_alg_id = ARCB_HMAC_SHA512;
> + uvcb.arcb_addr = page;
> + uvcb.measurement_address = measurement;
> + uvcb.measurement_length = measurement_size;
> + uvcb.add_data_address = additional;
> + uvcb.add_data_length = additional_size;
are you using those variables somewhere else? could you just assign
directly to the uvcb instead?
> +
> + uvcb.continuation_token = 0xff;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
please use uint*_t types everywhere
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0101, "invalid continuation token");
> + uvcb.continuation_token = 0;
> +
> + uvcb.user_data_length = sizeof(uvcb.user_data) + 1;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0102, "invalid user data size");
> + uvcb.user_data_length = 0;
> +
> + uvcb.arcb_addr = 0;
is 0 really not a valid address?
and what about an address outside memory?
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0103, "invalid address arcb");
> + uvcb.arcb_addr = page;
> +
> + /* 0104 - 0105 need an unseal-able request */
> +
> + /* version 0000 is an illegal version number */
> + arcb->req_ver = 0x0000;
just 0 is ok
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0106, "unsupported version");
> + arcb->req_ver = ARCB_VERSION_1;
> +
> + arcb->req_len += 1;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0107, "invalid arcb size 1");
> + arcb->req_len -= 1;
> + arcb->nks = 2;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0107, "invalid arcb size 2");
you say invalid arcb size, but you are changing the number of nks. I
think I understand why, but maybe it's better to add a comment to
explain what you are doing.
> + arcb->nks = 1;
> +
> + arcb->nks = 0;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0108, "invalid num key slots");
> + arcb->nks = 1;
> +
> + /* possible valid size (when using nonce). However, req_len too small to host a nonce */
> + arcb->sea = 80;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0109, "invalid encrypted size 1");
> + arcb->sea = 17;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x0109, "invalid encrypted size 2");
> + arcb->sea = 64;
> +
> + arcb->plaint_att_flags = supported_paf ^ ((u64) -1);
so you are trying to flip the lower 32 bits?
why not just supported_paf ^ ~0 ?
although a more readable form would probably be
supported_paf ^ GENMASK_ULL(31, 0)
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x010a, "invalid flag");
> + arcb->plaint_att_flags = plaint_att_flags;
> +
> + /* reserved value */
> + arcb->meas_alg_id = 0;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x010b, "invalid measurement algorithm");
> + arcb->meas_alg_id = ARCB_HMAC_SHA512;
> +
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x010c, "unable unseal");
>
> + uvcb.measurement_length = 0;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x010d, "invalid measurement size");
> + uvcb.measurement_length = measurement_size;
> +
> + uvcb.add_data_length = 0;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == 0x010e, "invalid additional size");
> + uvcb.add_data_length = additional_size;
> +}
> +
> +static void test_attest(void)
> +{
> + struct uv_cb_attest uvcb = {
> + .header.cmd = UVC_CMD_ATTESTATION,
> + .header.len = sizeof(uvcb),
> + };
> + const struct uv_cb_qui *uvcb_qui = uv_get_query_data();
> + int cc;
> +
> + report_prefix_push("attest");
> +
> + if (!uv_query_test_call(BIT_UVC_CMD_ATTESTATION)) {
> + report_skip("Attestation not supported.");
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> + /* Verify that the uv supports at least one header version */
> + report(uvcb_qui->supported_att_hdr_versions, "has hdr support");
> +
> + memset((void *) page, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
please no extra space between ) and p
> +
> + uvcb.header.len -= 1;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "invalid uvcb size 1");
> + uvcb.header.len += 1;
> +
> + uvcb.header.len += 1;
> + cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);
> + report(cc && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_LEN, "invalid uvcb size 2");
> + uvcb.header.len -= 1;
> +
> + report_prefix_push("v1");
> + if (test_bit_inv(0, &uvcb_qui->supported_att_hdr_versions))
> + test_attest_v1(uvcb_qui->supported_paf);
> + else
> + report_skip("Attestation version 1 not supported");
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +done:
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
>
> @@ -179,6 +350,7 @@ int main(void)
> test_invalid();
> test_query();
> test_sharing();
> + test_attest();
> free_page((void *)page);
> done:
> report_prefix_pop();
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-03 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-03 9:19 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 0/4] s390x: Attestation tests Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 9:19 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/4] s390x: uv-host: Add attestation test Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 16:37 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-02-03 9:19 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/4] s390x: lib: Add QUI getter Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 16:12 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-02-04 8:18 ` Janosch Frank
2022-02-03 9:19 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/4] s390x: uv-guest: remove duplicated checks Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 16:31 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-02-08 14:57 ` Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 9:19 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/4] s390x: uv-guest: Add attestation tests Steffen Eiden
2022-02-03 17:37 ` Claudio Imbrenda [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220203183751.21c402ac@p-imbrenda \
--to=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox