Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing

[Dr. David Alan Gilbert]

* Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:19:37PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> > 
> > On 2023-02-08 at 11:58 +01, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
> > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 10:44:25AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The CC threat model does change the traditional linux trust boundary regardless of
> > >> what mitigations are used (kernel config vs. runtime filtering). Because for the
> > >> drivers that CoCo guest happens to need, there is no way to fix this problem by
> > >> either of these mechanisms (we cannot disable the code that we need), unless somebody
> > >> writes a totally new set of coco specific drivers (who needs another set of
> > >> CoCo specific virtio drivers in the kernel?).
> > >
> > > It sounds like you want such a set of drivers, why not just write them?
> > > We have zillions of drivers already, it's not hard to write new ones, as
> > > it really sounds like that's exactly what you want to have happen here
> > > in the end as you don't trust the existing set of drivers you are using
> > > for some reason.
> > 
> > In the CC approach, the hypervisor is considered as hostile. The rest of the
> > system is not changed much. If we pass-through some existing NIC, we'd
> > rather use the existing driver for that NIC rather than reinvent
> > it.
> 
> But that is not what was proposed.  I thought this was all about virtio.
> If not, again, someone needs to write a solid definition.

As I said in my reply to you a couple of weeks ago:

  I'm not sure the request here isn't really to make sure *all* PCI devices
  are safe; just the ones we care about in a CoCo guest (e.g. the virtual devices) -
  and potentially ones that people will want to pass-through (which
  generally needs a lot more work to make safe).
  (I've not looked at these Intel tools to see what they cover)

so *mostly* virtio, and just a few of the other devices.

> So if you want to use existing drivers, wonderful, please work on making
> the needed changes to meet your goals to all of them.  I was trying to
> give you a simple way out :)
> 
> > >> 1. these selective CoCo guest required drivers (small set) needs to be hardened
> > >>  (or whatever word people prefer to use here), which only means that in
> > >> the presence of malicious host/hypervisor that can manipulate pci config space,
> > >> port IO and MMIO, these drivers should not expose CC guest memory
> > >> confidentiality or integrity (including via privilege escalation into CC guest).
> > >
> > > Again, stop it please with the "hardened" nonsense, that means nothing.
> > > Either the driver has bugs, or it doesn't.  I welcome you to prove it
> > > doesn't :)
> > 
> > In a non-CC scenario, a driver is correct if, among other things, it does
> > not leak kernel data to user space. However, it assumes that PCI devices are
> > working correctly and according to spec.
> 
> And you also assume that your CPU is working properly.

We require the CPU to give us a signed attestation to prove that it's a
trusted CPU, that someone external can validate.  So, not quite
'assume'.

>  And what spec
> exactly are you referring to?  How can you validate any of that without
> using the PCI authentication protocol already discussed in this thread?

The PCI auth protocol looks promising and is possibly the right long
term answer.   But for a pass through NIC for example, all we'd want is
that (with the help of the IOMMU) it can't get or corrupt any data the
guest doesn't give it - and then it's upto the guest to run encryption
over the protocols over the NIC.

> 
> > >> Please note that this only applies to a small set (in tdx virtio setup we have less
> > >> than 10 of them) of drivers and does not present invasive changes to the kernel
> > >> code. There is also an additional core pci/msi code that is involved with discovery
> > >> and configuration of these drivers, this code also falls into the category we need to
> > >> make robust.
> > >
> > > Again, why wouldn't we all want "robust" drivers?  This is not anything
> > > new here,
> > 
> > What is new is that CC requires driver to be "robust" against a new kind of
> > attack "from below" (i.e. from the [virtual] hardware side).
> 
> And as I have said multiple times, that is a totally new "requirement"
> and one that Linux does not meet in any way at this point in time.

Yes, that's a fair statement.

> If
> you somehow feel this is a change that is ok to make for Linux, you will
> need to do a lot of work to make this happen.
> 
> Anyway, you all are just spinning in circles now.  I'll just mute this
> thread until I see an actual code change as it seems to be full of
> people not actually sending anything we can actually do anything with.

I think the challenge will be to come up with non-intrusive, minimal
changes;  obviously you don't want stuff shutgunned everywhere.

Dave

> greg k-h
> 
-- 
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx / Manchester, UK