linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@linux.ibm.com>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Do not expose HFSCR sanitisation to nested hypervisor
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 12:04:16 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87eegpn0un.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1615191200.1pjltfhe7o.astroid@bobo.none>

Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:

> Excerpts from Fabiano Rosas's message of March 6, 2021 9:10 am:
>> As one of the arguments of the H_ENTER_NESTED hypercall, the nested
>> hypervisor (L1) prepares a structure containing the values of various
>> hypervisor-privileged registers with which it wants the nested guest
>> (L2) to run. Since the nested HV runs in supervisor mode it needs the
>> host to write to these registers.
>> 
>> To stop a nested HV manipulating this mechanism and using a nested
>> guest as a proxy to access a facility that has been made unavailable
>> to it, we have a routine that sanitises the values of the HV registers
>> before copying them into the nested guest's vcpu struct.
>> 
>> However, when coming out of the guest the values are copied as they
>> were back into L1 memory, which means that any sanitisation we did
>> during guest entry will be exposed to L1 after H_ENTER_NESTED returns.
>> 
>> This is not a problem by itself, but in the case of the Hypervisor
>> Facility Status and Control Register (HFSCR), we use the intersection
>> between L2 hfscr bits and L1 hfscr bits. That means that L1 could use
>> this to indirectly read the (hv-privileged) value from its vcpu
>> struct.
>> 
>> This patch fixes this by making sure that L1 only gets back the bits
>> that are necessary for regular functioning.
>
> The general idea of restricting exposure of HV privileged bits, but
> for the case of HFSCR a guest can probe the HFCR anyway by testing which 
> facilities are available (and presumably an HV may need some way to know
> what features are available for it to advertise to its own guests), so
> is this necessary? Perhaps a comment would be sufficient.
>

Well, I'd be happy to force them through the arduous path then =); and
there are features that are emulated by the HV which L1 would not be
able to probe.

I think we should implement a mechanism that stops all leaks now, rather
than having to ponder about this every time we touch an hv_reg in that
structure. I'm not too worried about HFSCR specifically.

Let me think about this some more and see if I can make it more generic,
I realise that sticking the saved_hfscr on the side is not the most
elegant approach.

> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Fabiano Rosas <farosas@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_nested.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_nested.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_nested.c
>> index 0cd0e7aad588..860004f46e08 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_nested.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_nested.c
>> @@ -98,12 +98,20 @@ static void byteswap_hv_regs(struct hv_guest_state *hr)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void save_hv_return_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int trap,
>> -				 struct hv_guest_state *hr)
>> +				 struct hv_guest_state *hr, u64 saved_hfscr)
>>  {
>>  	struct kvmppc_vcore *vc = vcpu->arch.vcore;
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * During sanitise_hv_regs() we used HFSCR bits from L1 state
>> +	 * to restrict what the L2 state is allowed to be. Since L1 is
>> +	 * not allowed to read this SPR, do not include these
>> +	 * modifications in the return state.
>> +	 */
>> +	hr->hfscr = ((~HFSCR_INTR_CAUSE & saved_hfscr) |
>> +		     (HFSCR_INTR_CAUSE & vcpu->arch.hfscr));
>> +
>>  	hr->dpdes = vc->dpdes;
>> -	hr->hfscr = vcpu->arch.hfscr;
>>  	hr->purr = vcpu->arch.purr;
>>  	hr->spurr = vcpu->arch.spurr;
>>  	hr->ic = vcpu->arch.ic;
>> @@ -132,12 +140,14 @@ static void save_hv_return_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int trap,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void sanitise_hv_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct hv_guest_state *hr)
>> +static void sanitise_hv_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct hv_guest_state *hr,
>> +			     u64 *saved_hfscr)
>>  {
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Don't let L1 enable features for L2 which we've disabled for L1,
>>  	 * but preserve the interrupt cause field.
>>  	 */
>> +	*saved_hfscr = hr->hfscr;
>>  	hr->hfscr &= (HFSCR_INTR_CAUSE | vcpu->arch.hfscr);
>>  
>>  	/* Don't let data address watchpoint match in hypervisor state */
>> @@ -272,6 +282,7 @@ long kvmhv_enter_nested_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	u64 hdec_exp;
>>  	s64 delta_purr, delta_spurr, delta_ic, delta_vtb;
>>  	u64 mask;
>> +	u64 hfscr;
>>  	unsigned long lpcr;
>>  
>>  	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.l1_ptcr == 0)
>> @@ -324,7 +335,8 @@ long kvmhv_enter_nested_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	mask = LPCR_DPFD | LPCR_ILE | LPCR_TC | LPCR_AIL | LPCR_LD |
>>  		LPCR_LPES | LPCR_MER;
>>  	lpcr = (vc->lpcr & ~mask) | (l2_hv.lpcr & mask);
>> -	sanitise_hv_regs(vcpu, &l2_hv);
>> +
>> +	sanitise_hv_regs(vcpu, &l2_hv, &hfscr);
>>  	restore_hv_regs(vcpu, &l2_hv);
>>  
>>  	vcpu->arch.ret = RESUME_GUEST;
>> @@ -345,7 +357,7 @@ long kvmhv_enter_nested_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	delta_spurr = vcpu->arch.spurr - l2_hv.spurr;
>>  	delta_ic = vcpu->arch.ic - l2_hv.ic;
>>  	delta_vtb = vc->vtb - l2_hv.vtb;
>> -	save_hv_return_state(vcpu, vcpu->arch.trap, &l2_hv);
>> +	save_hv_return_state(vcpu, vcpu->arch.trap, &l2_hv, hfscr);
>>  
>>  	/* restore L1 state */
>>  	vcpu->arch.nested = NULL;
>> -- 
>> 2.29.2
>> 
>> 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-08 15:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-05 23:10 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Do not expose HFSCR sanitisation to nested hypervisor Fabiano Rosas
2021-03-08  8:18 ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-03-08 15:04   ` Fabiano Rosas [this message]
2021-03-09  1:07     ` Nicholas Piggin
2021-03-09  1:52     ` Michael Ellerman
2021-03-10  9:23   ` Paul Mackerras
2021-03-12  1:13     ` Nicholas Piggin

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=87eegpn0un.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=farosas@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).