Re: [PATCH v11 18/35] KVM: SEV: Add KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE command

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, Michael Roth wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 07:45:36AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023, Michael Roth wrote:
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> > > index b1beb2fe8766..d4325b26724c 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
> > > @@ -485,6 +485,34 @@ Returns: 0 on success, -negative on error
> > >  
> > >  See the SEV-SNP specification for further detail on the launch input.
> > >  
> > > +20. KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE
> > > +-------------------------
> > > +
> > > +The KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE is used for encrypting a memory region. It also
> > > +calculates a measurement of the memory contents. The measurement is a signature
> > > +of the memory contents that can be sent to the guest owner as an attestation
> > > +that the memory was encrypted correctly by the firmware.
> > > +
> > > +Parameters (in): struct  kvm_snp_launch_update
> > > +
> > > +Returns: 0 on success, -negative on error
> > > +
> > > +::
> > > +
> > > +        struct kvm_sev_snp_launch_update {
> > > +                __u64 start_gfn;        /* Guest page number to start from. */
> > > +                __u64 uaddr;            /* userspace address need to be encrypted */
> > 
> > Huh?  Why is KVM taking a userspace address?  IIUC, the address unconditionally
> > gets translated into a gfn, so why not pass a gfn?
> > 
> > And speaking of gfns, AFAICT start_gfn is never used.
> 
> I think having both the uaddr and start_gfn parameters makes sense. I
> think it's only awkward because how I'm using the memslot to translate
> the uaddr to a GFN in the current implementation,

Yes.

> > Oof, reading more of the code, this *requires* an effective in-place copy-and-convert
> > of guest memory.
> 
> Yes, I'm having some trouble locating the various threads, but initially
> there were some discussions about having a userspace API that allows for
> UPM/gmem pages to be pre-populated before they are in-place encrypted, but
> we'd all eventually decided that having KVM handle this internally was
> the simplest approach.
> 
> So that's how it's done here, KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE copies the pages into
> gmem, then passes those pages on to firmware for encryption. Then the
> VMM is expected to mark the GFN range as private via
> KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES, since the VMM understands what constitutes
> initial private/encrypted payload. I should document that better in
> KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE docs however.

That's fine.  As above, my complaints are that the unencrypted source *must* be
covered by a memslot.  That's beyond ugly.

> > What's "the IMI"?  Initial Measurement Image?  I assume this is essentially just
> > a flag that communicates whether or not the page should be measured?
> 
> This is actually for loading a measured migration agent into the target
> system so that it can handle receiving the encrypted guest data from the
> source. There's still a good deal of planning around how live migration
> will be handled however so if you think it's premature to expose this
> via KVM I can remove the related fields.

Yes, please.  Though FWIW, I honestly hope KVM_SEV_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE goes away
and we end up with a common uAPI for populating guest memory:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zbrj5WKVgMsUFDtb@xxxxxxxxxx

> > > +                __u8 page_type;         /* page type */
> > > +                __u8 vmpl3_perms;       /* VMPL3 permission mask */
> > > +                __u8 vmpl2_perms;       /* VMPL2 permission mask */
> > > +                __u8 vmpl1_perms;       /* VMPL1 permission mask */
> > 
> > Why?  KVM doesn't support VMPLs.
> 
> It does actually get used by the SVSM.

> I can remove these but then we'd need some capability bit or something to
> know when they are available if they get re-introduced.

_If_.  We don't merge dead code, and we _definitely_ don't merge dead code that
creates ABI.

> > > +		kvaddr = pfn_to_kaddr(pfns[i]);
> > > +		if (!virt_addr_valid(kvaddr)) {
> > 
> > I really, really don't like that this assume guest_memfd is backed by struct page.
> 
> There are similar enforcements in the SEV/SEV-ES code. There was some
> initial discussion about relaxing this for SNP so we could support
> things like /dev/mem-mapped guest memory, but then guest_memfd came
> along and made that to be an unlikely use-case in the near-term given
> that it relies on alloc_pages() currently and explicitly guards against
> mmap()'ing pages in userspace.
> 
> I think it makes to keep the current tightened restrictions in-place
> until such a use-case comes along, since otherwise we are relaxing a
> bunch of currently-useful sanity checks that span all throughout the code
> to support some nebulous potential use-case that might never come along.
> I think it makes more sense to cross that bridge when we get there.

I disagree.  You say "sanity checks", while I see a bunch of arbitrary assumptions
that don't need to exist.  Yes, today guest_memfd always uses struct page memory,
but that should have _zero_ impact on SNP.  Arbitrary assumptions often cause a
lot of confusion for future readers, e.g. a few years from now, if the above code
still exists, someone might wonder what is so special about struct page memory,
and then waste a bunch of time trying to figure out that there's no technical
reason SNP "requires" struct page memory.

This is partly why I was pushing for guest_memfd to handle some of this; the
gmem code _knows_ what backing type it's using, it _knows_ if the direct map is
valid, etc.

> > > +			pr_err("Invalid HVA 0x%llx for GFN 0x%llx\n", (uint64_t)kvaddr, gfn);
> > > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > > +			goto e_release;
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		ret = kvm_read_guest_page(kvm, gfn, kvaddr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> > 
> > Good gravy.  If I'm reading this correctly, KVM:
> > 
> >   1. Translates an HVA into a GFN.
> >   2. Gets the PFN for that GFN from guest_memfd
> >   3. Verifies the PFN is not assigned to the guest
> >   4. Copies memory from the shared memslot page to the guest_memfd page
> >   5. Converts the page to private and asks the PSP to encrypt it
> > 
> > (a) As above, why is #1 a thing?
> 
> Yah, it's probably best to avoid this, as proposed above.
> 
> > (b) Why are KVM's memory attributes never consulted?
> 
> It doesn't really matter if the attributes are set before or after
> KVM_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE, only that by the time the guest actually launches
> they pages get set to private so they get faulted in from gmem. We could
> document our expectations and enforce them here if that's preferable
> however. Maybe requiring KVM_SET_MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES(private) in advance
> would make it easier to enforce that userspace does the right thing.
> I'll see how that looks if there are no objections.

Userspace owns whether a page is PRIVATE or SHARED, full stop.  If KVM can't
honor that, then we need to come up with better uAPI.

> > (c) What prevents TOCTOU issues with respect to the RMP?
> 
> Time-of-use will be when the guest faults the gmem page in with C-bit
> set. If it is not in the expected Guest-owned/pre-validated state that
> SEV_CMD_SNP_LAUNCH_UPDATE expected/set, then the guest will get an RMP
> fault or #VC exception for unvalidated page access. It will also fail
> attestation. Not sure if that covers the scenarios you had in mind.

I don't think this covers what I was asking, but I suspect my concern will go
away once the new APIs come along, so let's table this for now.

> 
> > (d) Why is *KVM* copying memory into guest_memfd?
> 
> As mentioned above, there were various discussions of ways of allowing
> userspace to pwrite() to the guest_memfd in advance of
> "sealing"/"binding" it and then encrypting it in place. I think this was
> one of the related threads:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YkyKywkQYbr9U0CA@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> My read at the time was that the requirements between pKVM/TDX/SNP were all
> so unique that we'd spin forever trying to come up with a userspace ABI
> that worked for everyone. At the time you'd suggested for pKVM to handle
> their specific requirements internally in pKVM to avoid unecessary churn on
> TDX/SNP side, and I took the same approach with SNP in implementing it
> internally in SNP's KVM interfaces since it seemed unlikely there would
> be much common ground with how TDX handles it via KVM_TDX_INIT_MEM_REGION.

Yeah, the whole "intra-memslot copy" thing threw me.

> > (e) What guarantees the direct map is valid for guest_memfd?
> 
> Are you suggesting this may change in the near-term?

I asking because, when I asked, I was unaware that the plan was to shatter the
direct to address the 2MiB vs. 4KiB erratum (as opposed to unmapping guest_memfd
pfns).

> > > +		if (ret) {
> > > +			pr_err("SEV-SNP launch update failed, ret: 0x%x, fw_error: 0x%x\n",
> > > +			       ret, *error);
> > > +			snp_page_reclaim(pfns[i]);
> > > +
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * When invalid CPUID function entries are detected, the firmware
> > > +			 * corrects these entries for debugging purpose and leaves the
> > > +			 * page unencrypted so it can be provided users for debugging
> > > +			 * and error-reporting.
> > > +			 *
> > > +			 * Copy the corrected CPUID page back to shared memory so
> > > +			 * userpsace can retrieve this information.
> > 
> > Why?  IIUC, this is basically backdooring reads/writes into guest_memfd to avoid
> > having to add proper mmap() support.
> 
> The CPUID page is private/encrypted, so it needs to be a gmem page.
> SNP firmware is doing the backdooring when it writes the unencrypted,
> expected contents into the page during failure. What's wrong with copying
> the contents back into the source page so userspace can be use of it?
> If we implement the above-mentioned changes then the source page is just
> a userspace buffer that isn't necessarily associated with a memslot, so
> it becomes even more straightforward.
> 
> Would that be acceptable?

Yes, I am specifically complaining about writing guest memory on failure, which is
all kinds of weird.

> > > +	kvfree(pfns);
> > 
> > Saving PFNs from guest_memfd, which is fully owned by KVM, is so unnecessarily
> > complex.  Add a guest_memfd API (or three) to do this safely, e.g. to lock the
> > pages, do (and track) the RMP conversion, etc...
> 
> Is adding 3 gmem APIs and tracking RMP states inside gmem really less
> complex than what's going on here?

I think we covered this in PUCK?  Holler if you still have questions here.