From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com>
Cc: "Singh, Brijesh" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
"libvir-list@redhat.com" <libvir-list@redhat.com>,
"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
"dinechin@redhat.com" <dinechin@redhat.com>,
"mkletzan@redhat.com" <mkletzan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] AMD SEV's /dev/sev permissions and probing QEMU for capabilities
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:10:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190123131042.GF27270@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190123125506.GA2376@beluga.usersys.redhat.com>
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:55:06PM +0100, Erik Skultety wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:51:50PM +0000, Singh, Brijesh wrote:
> >
> > On 1/18/19 3:39 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > this is a summary of a private discussion I've had with guys CC'd on this email
> > > about finding a solution to [1] - basically, the default permissions on
> > > /dev/sev (below) make it impossible to query for SEV platform capabilities,
> > > since by default we run QEMU as qemu:qemu when probing for capabilities. It's
> > > worth noting is that this is only relevant to probing, since for a proper QEMU
> > > VM we create a mount namespace for the process and chown all the nodes (needs a
> > > SEV fix though).
> > >
> > > # ll /dev/sev
> > > crw-------. 1 root root
> > >
> > > I suggested either force running QEMU as root for probing (despite the obvious
> > > security implications) or using namespaces for probing too. Dan argued that
> > > this would have a significant perf impact and suggested we ask systemd to add a
> > > global udev rule.
> > >
> > > I proceeded with cloning [1] to systemd and creating an udev rule that I planned
> > > on submitting to systemd upstream - the initial idea was to mimic /dev/kvm and
> > > make it world accessible to which Brijesh from AMD expressed a concern that
> > > regular users might deplete the resources (limit on the number of guests
> > > allowed by the platform).
> >
> >
> > During private discussion I didn't realized that we are discussing a
> > probe issue hence things I have said earlier may not be applicable
> > during the probe. The /dev/sev is managed by the CCP (aka PSP) driver.
> > The /dev/sev is used for communicating with the SEV FW running inside
> > the PSP. The SEV FW offers platform and guest specific services. The
> > guest specific services are used during the guest launch, these services
> > are available through KVM driver only. Whereas the platform services can
> > be invoked at anytime. A typical platform specific services are:
> >
> > - importing certificates
> >
> > - exporting certificates
> >
> > - querying the SEV FW version etc etc
> >
> > In case of the probe we are not launch SEV guest hence we should not be
> > worried about depleting the SEV ASID resources.
> >
> > IIRC, libvirt uses QEMP query-sev-capabilities to probe the SEV support.
> > QEMU executes the below sequence to complete the request:
> >
> > 1. Exports the platform certificates (this is when /dev/sev is accessed).
> >
> > 2. Read the host MSR to determine the C-bit and reduced phys-bit position
> >
> > I don't see any reason why we can't give world a 'read' permission to
> > /dev/sev. Anyone should be able to export the certificates and query
>
> Okay, makes sense to me. The problem I see is the sev_platform_ioctl function
> in QEMU which makes an _IOWR request, therefore the file descriptor being
> opened in sev_get_capabilities is O_RDWR. Now, I only understand ioctl from
> what I've read in the man page, so I don't quite understand the need for IOWR
> here - but my honest guess would be that it's because the commands like
> SEV_PDH_CERT_EXPORT or SEV_PLATFORM_STATUS need to be copied from userspace to
> kernel to instruct kernel which services we want, ergo _IOWR, is that right?
I'm not seeing any permissions checks in the sev_ioctl() function in the
kernel, so IIUC, that means any permissions are entirely based on whether
you can open the /dev/sev, once open you can run any ioctl. What, if anything,
enforces which ioctls you can run when the device is only O_RDONLY vs O_RDWR ?
> In any case, a fix of some sort needs to land in QEMU first, because no udev
> rule would fix the current situation. Afterwards, I expect that having a rule
> like this:
>
> KERNEL=="sev", GROUP="kvm", MODE="0644"
>
> and a selinux policy rule adding the kvm_device_t label, we should be fine, do
> we agree on that?
Based on what I think I see above, this looks like a bad idea.
It still looks like we can solve this entirely in libvirt by just giving
the libvirt capabilities probing code CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE. This would make
libvirt work for all currently released SEV support in kernel/qemu.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-23 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-18 9:39 [Qemu-devel] AMD SEV's /dev/sev permissions and probing QEMU for capabilities Erik Skultety
2019-01-18 10:16 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-18 10:56 ` [Qemu-devel] [libvirt] " Erik Skultety
2019-01-18 11:11 ` [Qemu-devel] " Martin Kletzander
2019-01-18 11:17 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-18 11:31 ` Martin Kletzander
2019-01-18 12:51 ` Singh, Brijesh
2019-01-23 12:55 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-23 13:10 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2019-01-23 13:22 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-23 13:24 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-23 13:33 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-23 13:36 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-23 15:02 ` Singh, Brijesh
2019-01-23 15:29 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-29 16:15 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-29 18:40 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-30 8:06 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-30 10:37 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-30 13:39 ` Erik Skultety
2019-01-30 17:47 ` Singh, Brijesh
2019-01-30 18:18 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2019-01-31 15:28 ` Erik Skultety
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=20190123131042.GF27270@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=dinechin@redhat.com \
--cc=eskultet@redhat.com \
--cc=libvir-list@redhat.com \
--cc=mkletzan@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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).