Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:58:47 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To:     Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com>
CC:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "Shishkin, Alexander" <alexander.shishkin@intel.com>,
        "Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@intel.com>,
        "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@intel.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@intel.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Mika Westerberg" <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "Poimboe, Josh" <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "aarcange@redhat.com" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "Cfir Cohen" <cfir@google.com>, Marc Orr <marcorr@google.com>,
        "jbachmann@google.com" <jbachmann@google.com>,
        "pgonda@google.com" <pgonda@google.com>,
        "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
        "Lange, Jon" <jlange@microsoft.com>,
        "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing
Message-ID: <20230126105847.00001b97@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXJix9-cXNW7EwJf0PVzj_Qmt5fmQvBX1KvXfRX5NAeEpnMvw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DM8PR11MB57505481B2FE79C3D56C9201E7CE9@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
        <Y9EkCvAfNXnJ+ATo@kroah.com>
        <Y9Ex3ZUIFxwOBg1n@work-vm>
        <Y9E7PNmSTP5w2zuw@kroah.com>
        <Y9FDZPV7qENtNNyk@work-vm>
        <20230125215333.GA18160@wunner.de>
        <CAGXJix9-cXNW7EwJf0PVzj_Qmt5fmQvBX1KvXfRX5NAeEpnMvw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:24:32 +0100
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@rivosinc.com> wrote:

> Hi Lukas,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 11:03 PM Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> 
> > [cc += Jonathan Cameron, linux-pci]
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:57:40PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:  
> > > Greg Kroah-Hartman (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org) wrote:  
> > > > Great, so why not have hardware attestation also for your devices you
> > > > wish to talk to?  Why not use that as well?  Then you don't have to
> > > > worry about anything in the guest.  
> > >
> > > There were some talks at Plumbers where PCIe is working on adding that;
> > > it's not there yet though.  I think that's PCIe 'Integrity and Data
> > > Encryption' (IDE - sigh), and PCIe 'Security Prtocol and Data Model' -
> > > SPDM.   I don't know much of the detail of those, just that they're far
> > > enough off that people aren't depending on them yet.  
> >
> > CMA/SPDM (PCIe r6.0 sec 6.31) is in active development on this branch:
> >
> > https://github.com/l1k/linux/commits/doe  
> 
> Nice, thanks a lot for that.
> 
> 
> 
> > The device authentication service afforded here is generic.
> > It is up to users and vendors to decide how to employ it,
> > be it for "confidential computing" or something else.
> >
> > Trusted root certificates to validate device certificates can be
> > installed into a kernel keyring using the familiar keyctl(1) utility,
> > but platform-specific roots of trust (such as a HSM) could be
> > supported as well.
> >  
> 
> This may have been discussed at LPC, but are there any plans to also
> support confidential computing flows where the host kernel is not part
> of the TCB and would not be trusted for validating the device cert chain
> nor for running the SPDM challenge?

There are lots of possible models for this. One simple option if the assigned
VF supports it is a CMA instance per VF. That will let the guest
do full attestation including measurement of whether the device is
appropriately locked down so the hypervisor can't mess with
configuration that affects the guest (without a reset anyway and that
is guest visible). Whether anyone builds that option isn't yet clear
though. If they do, Lukas' work should work there as well as for the
host OS. (Note I'm not a security expert so may be missing something!)

For extra fun, why should the device trust the host? Mutual authentication
fun (there are usecases where that matters)

There are way more complex options supported in PCIe TDISP (Tee Device
security interface protocols). Anyone have an visibility of open solutions
that make use of that? May be too new.

Jonathan


> 
> Cheers,
> Samuel.
>