Thread (13 messages) flat view 13 messages, 4 authors, 2021-10-20

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] efi/libstub: Copy confidential computing secret area

From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-10-20 07:02:47
Also in: linux-efi, linux-security-module, lkml

On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 08:44, Greg KH [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 06:14:06AM +0000, Dov Murik wrote:
quoted
Confidential computing (coco) hardware such as AMD SEV (Secure Encrypted
Virtualization) allows a guest owner to inject secrets into the VMs
memory without the host/hypervisor being able to read them.

Firmware support for secret injection is available in OVMF, which
reserves a memory area for secret injection and includes a pointer to it
the in EFI config table entry LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_TABLE_GUID.
However, OVMF doesn't force the guest OS to keep this memory area
reserved.

If EFI exposes such a table entry, efi/libstub will copy this area to a
reserved memory for future use inside the kernel.

A pointer to the new copy is kept in the EFI table under
LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_AREA_GUID.

The new functionality can be enabled with CONFIG_EFI_COCO_SECRET=y.

Signed-off-by: Dov Murik <redacted>
---
 drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig            | 12 +++++
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile   |  1 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/coco.c     | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub.c |  2 +
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efistub.h  |  6 +++
 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/x86-stub.c |  2 +
 include/linux/efi.h                     |  6 +++
 7 files changed, 97 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/coco.c
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig b/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig
index 2c3dac5ecb36..68d1c5e6a7b5 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig
@@ -284,3 +284,15 @@ config EFI_CUSTOM_SSDT_OVERLAYS

        See Documentation/admin-guide/acpi/ssdt-overlays.rst for more
        information.
+
+config EFI_COCO_SECRET
+     bool "Copy and reserve EFI Confidential Computing secret area"
+     depends on EFI
+     default n
default is always "n", no need to list this.
quoted
+     help
+       Copy memory reserved by EFI for Confidential Computing (coco)
+       injected secrets, if EFI exposes such a table entry.
Why would you want to "copy" secret memory?

This sounds really odd here, it sounds like you are opening up a
security hole.  Are you sure this is the correct text that everyone on
the "COCO" group agrees with?
quoted
+
+       If you say Y here, the EFI stub copy the EFI secret area (if
+       available) and reserve it for use inside the kernel.  This will
+       allow the virt/coo/efi_secret module to access the secrets.
What is "virt/coo/efi_secret"?
quoted
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
index d0537573501e..fdada3fd5d9b 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/Makefile
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ $(obj)/lib-%.o: $(srctree)/lib/%.c FORCE
 lib-$(CONFIG_EFI_GENERIC_STUB)       += efi-stub.o fdt.o string.o \
                                 $(patsubst %.c,lib-%.o,$(efi-deps-y))

+lib-$(CONFIG_EFI_COCO_SECRET)        += coco.o
 lib-$(CONFIG_ARM)            += arm32-stub.o
 lib-$(CONFIG_ARM64)          += arm64-stub.o
 lib-$(CONFIG_X86)            += x86-stub.o
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/coco.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/coco.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..bf546b6a3f72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/coco.c
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * Confidential computing (coco) secret area handling
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2021 IBM Corporation
+ * Author: Dov Murik <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>
+ */
+
+#include <linux/efi.h>
+#include <linux/sizes.h>
+#include <asm/efi.h>
+
+#include "efistub.h"
+
+#define LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_TABLE_GUID                                                           \
+     EFI_GUID(0xadf956ad, 0xe98c, 0x484c, 0xae, 0x11, 0xb5, 0x1c, 0x7d, 0x33, 0x64, 0x47)
+
+/**
+ * struct efi_coco_secret_table - EFI config table that points to the
+ * confidential computing secret area. The guid
+ * LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_TABLE_GUID holds this table.
+ * @base:    Physical address of the EFI secret area
+ * @size:    Size (in bytes) of the EFI secret area
+ */
+struct efi_coco_secret_table {
+     u64 base;
+     u64 size;
__le64?  Or is this really in host endian format?
EFI hosts are always LE so either is fine.
quoted
+} __attribute((packed));
+
+/*
+ * Create a copy of EFI's confidential computing secret area (if available) so
+ * that the secrets are accessible in the kernel after ExitBootServices.
+ */
+void efi_copy_coco_secret_area(void)
+{
+     efi_guid_t linux_secret_area_guid = LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_AREA_GUID;
+     efi_status_t status;
+     struct efi_coco_secret_table *secret_table;
+     struct linux_efi_coco_secret_area *secret_area;
+
+     secret_table = get_efi_config_table(LINUX_EFI_COCO_SECRET_TABLE_GUID);
+     if (!secret_table)
+             return;
+
+     if (secret_table->size == 0 || secret_table->size >= SZ_4G)
+             return;
+
+     /* Allocate space for the secret area and copy it */
+     status = efi_bs_call(allocate_pool, EFI_LOADER_DATA,
+                          sizeof(*secret_area) + secret_table->size, (void **)&secret_area);
+
+     if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) {
+             efi_err("Unable to allocate memory for confidential computing secret area copy\n");
+             return;
+     }
+
+     secret_area->size = secret_table->size;
+     memcpy(secret_area->area, (void *)(unsigned long)secret_table->base, secret_table->size);
Why the double cast?
This is generally needed for compatibility with 32-bit hosts, where
casting a u64 to void* causes warnings, even though we know in that
case that only the lower 32 bits will contain anything (even with PAE
etc, as 32-bit UEFI only uses 32-bit addressable memory)

In this particular case, it probably makes little sense, as COCO is
not going to run on 32-bit hosts anyway (famous last words)
And you can treat this value as a "raw" pointer directly?  No need to
map it at all?  What could go wrong...
Yes. EFI boot services (as well as this code) are guaranteed to run
under a 1:1 mapping of system memory.
quoted
+
+     status = efi_bs_call(install_configuration_table, &linux_secret_area_guid, secret_area);
+     if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
+             goto err_free;
+
+     return;
+
+err_free:
+     efi_bs_call(free_pool, secret_area);
This memory is never freed when shutting down the system?
All boot services memory is implicitly freed when the system calls
ExitBootServices() so this is fine.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help