Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:43:50 +0100
From:   =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_R=F6del?= <joro@8bytes.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Joan Bruguera <joanbrugueram@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
        Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] x86/boot: Delay sev_verify_cbit() a bit
Message-ID: <Y8qMhhEOA6MuGMxm@8bytes.org>
References: <20230116142533.905102512@infradead.org>
 <20230116143645.649204101@infradead.org>
 <Y8lDN73cNOmNuciV@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y8lDN73cNOmNuciV@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 02:18:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> So, can we do that C-bit verification once on the BSP, *in C* which would be a
> lot easier, and be done with it?
> 
> Once it is verified there, the bit is the same on all APs so all good.

Yes, I think this is safe to do. The page-table the APs will use to boot
already has the correct C-bit set, and the position is verified on the
BSP. Further, the C-bit position is a hardware capability and there is
no chance the APs will have it at a different position than the BSP.

Even if the HV is lying to the VM by faking CPUID on the APs it wouldn't
matter, because the position is not read again on the APs.

Regards,

	Joerg