lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 2/5] x86/tme: Detect if TME and MKTME is activated by BIOS
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:02:26AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/07/2018 04:59 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > IA32_TME_ACTIVATE MSR (0x982) can be used to check if BIOS has enabled
> > TME and MKTME. It includes which encryption policy/algorithm is selected
> > for TME or available for MKTME. For MKTME, the MSR also enumerates how
> > many KeyIDs are available.
>
> The hacking of the phys_addr_bits is a pretty important part of this.
> Are you sure it's not worth calling out in the description?

Okay, will do on the next revision.

> > +#define MSR_IA32_TME_ACTIVATE 0x982
> > +
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_LOCKED(x) (x & 0x1)
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_ENABLED(x) (x & 0x2)
> > +
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_POLICY(x) ((x >> 4) & 0xf) /* Bits 7:4 */
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_POLICY_AES_XTS_128 0
> > +
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_KEYID_BITS(x) ((x >> 32) & 0xf) /* Bits 35:32 */
> > +
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_CRYPTO_ALGS(x) ((x >> 48) & 0xffff) /* Bits 63:48 */
> > +#define TME_ACTIVATE_CRYPTO_AES_XTS_128 1
> > +
> > +#define MKTME_ENABLED 0
> > +#define MKTME_DISABLED 1
> > +#define MKTME_UNINITIALIZED 2
>
> The indentation there looks a bit wonky. Might want to double-check it.

Do you mean that MKTME_* is indented differently than the rest?

I'll fix that.

> Also, can you clearly spell out which of these things are software
> constructs vs. hardware ones? MKTME_* look like software constructs.

Yes, MKTME_* is software. I'll call it out.

> > +static int mktme_status = MKTME_UNINITIALIZED;
> > +
> > +static void detect_keyid_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, u64 tme_activate)
> > +{
> > + int keyid_bits = 0, nr_keyids = 0;
> > +
> > + keyid_bits = TME_ACTIVATE_KEYID_BITS(tme_activate);
> > + nr_keyids = (1UL << keyid_bits) - 1;
> > + if (nr_keyids) {
> > + pr_info_once("x86/mktme: enabled by BIOS\n");
> > + pr_info_once("x86/mktme: %d KeyIDs available\n", nr_keyids);
> > + } else {
> > + pr_info_once("x86/mktme: disabled by BIOS\n");
> > + }
>
> Just curious, but how do you know that this indicates the BIOS disabling
> MKTME?

0 bits for KeyID means we don't have MKTME. Only TME.

>
> > + if (mktme_status == MKTME_UNINITIALIZED) {
> > + /* MKTME is usable */
> > + mktme_status = MKTME_ENABLED;
> > + }
>
> To me, it's a little bit odd that we "enable" MKTME down in the keyid
> detection code. I wonder if you could just return the resulting number
> of keyids and then actually do the mktme_status munging in one place
> (detect_tme()).

Makes sense.

> > + /*
> > + * Exclude KeyID bits from physical address bits.
> > + *
> > + * We have to do this even if we are not going to use KeyID bits
> > + * ourself. VM guests still have to know that these bits are not usable
> > + * for physical address.
> > + */
> > + c->x86_phys_bits -= keyid_bits;
> > +}
>
> How do we tell guests about this? kvm_set_mmio_spte_mask()?

Has Kai answered this for you?

> > +static void detect_tme(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > +{
> > + u64 tme_activate, tme_policy, tme_crypto_algs;
> > + static u64 tme_activate_cpu0 = 0;
> > +
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_TME_ACTIVATE, tme_activate);
> > +
> > + if (mktme_status != MKTME_UNINITIALIZED) {
> > + if (tme_activate != tme_activate_cpu0) {
> > + /* Broken BIOS? */
> > + pr_err_once("x86/tme: configuation is inconsistent between CPUs\n");
> > + pr_err_once("x86/tme: MKTME is not usable\n");
> > + mktme_status = MKTME_DISABLED;
> > +
> > + /* Proceed. We may need to exclude bits from x86_phys_bits. */
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + tme_activate_cpu0 = tme_activate;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!TME_ACTIVATE_LOCKED(tme_activate) || !TME_ACTIVATE_ENABLED(tme_activate)) {
> > + pr_info_once("x86/tme: not enabled by BIOS\n");
> > + mktme_status = MKTME_DISABLED;
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (mktme_status != MKTME_UNINITIALIZED)
> > + return detect_keyid_bits(c, tme_activate);
>
> Returning the result of a void function is a bit odd-looking. Would it
> look nicer to just have a label and some gotos to the detection?

Okay. Either way fine to me.

> > + pr_info("x86/tme: enabled by BIOS\n");
> > +
> > + tme_policy = TME_ACTIVATE_POLICY(tme_activate);
> > + if (tme_policy != TME_ACTIVATE_POLICY_AES_XTS_128)
> > + pr_warn("x86/tme: Unknown policy is active: %#llx\n", tme_policy);
> > +
> > + tme_crypto_algs = TME_ACTIVATE_CRYPTO_ALGS(tme_activate);
> > + if (!(tme_crypto_algs & TME_ACTIVATE_CRYPTO_AES_XTS_128)) {
> > + pr_err("x86/mktme: No known encryption algorithm is supported: %#llx\n",
> > + tme_crypto_algs);
> > + mktme_status = MKTME_DISABLED;
> > + }
> > +
> > + detect_keyid_bits(c, tme_activate);
> > +}
>
> I noticed that this code is not optional, other than by disabling
> CPU_SUP_INTEL. Was that intentional? What were your thoughts behind that?

We need to mask out bits for KeyID even if we don't use them ourself, so I think
we should do this unconditionally.

I need to re-check this with 32-bit kernel, though.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-08 16:47    [W:0.039 / U:1.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site