diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst | 253 |
1 files changed, 253 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst b/Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ec66f2ed80 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@ +====================================================== +Confidential Computing in Linux for x86 virtualization +====================================================== + +.. contents:: :local: + +By: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com> and Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com> + +Motivation +========== + +Kernel developers working on confidential computing for virtualized +environments in x86 operate under a set of assumptions regarding the Linux +kernel threat model that differ from the traditional view. Historically, +the Linux threat model acknowledges attackers residing in userspace, as +well as a limited set of external attackers that are able to interact with +the kernel through various networking or limited HW-specific exposed +interfaces (USB, thunderbolt). The goal of this document is to explain +additional attack vectors that arise in the confidential computing space +and discuss the proposed protection mechanisms for the Linux kernel. + +Overview and terminology +======================== + +Confidential Computing (CoCo) is a broad term covering a wide range of +security technologies that aim to protect the confidentiality and integrity +of data in use (vs. data at rest or data in transit). At its core, CoCo +solutions provide a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), where secure data +processing can be performed and, as a result, they are typically further +classified into different subtypes depending on the SW that is intended +to be run in TEE. This document focuses on a subclass of CoCo technologies +that are targeting virtualized environments and allow running Virtual +Machines (VM) inside TEE. From now on in this document will be referring +to this subclass of CoCo as 'Confidential Computing (CoCo) for the +virtualized environments (VE)'. + +CoCo, in the virtualization context, refers to a set of HW and/or SW +technologies that allow for stronger security guarantees for the SW running +inside a CoCo VM. Namely, confidential computing allows its users to +confirm the trustworthiness of all SW pieces to include in its reduced +Trusted Computing Base (TCB) given its ability to attest the state of these +trusted components. + +While the concrete implementation details differ between technologies, all +available mechanisms aim to provide increased confidentiality and +integrity for the VM's guest memory and execution state (vCPU registers), +more tightly controlled guest interrupt injection, as well as some +additional mechanisms to control guest-host page mapping. More details on +the x86-specific solutions can be found in +:doc:`Intel Trust Domain Extensions (TDX) </arch/x86/tdx>` and +`AMD Memory Encryption <https://www.amd.com/system/files/techdocs/sev-snp-strengthening-vm-isolation-with-integrity-protection-and-more.pdf>`_. + +The basic CoCo guest layout includes the host, guest, the interfaces that +communicate guest and host, a platform capable of supporting CoCo VMs, and +a trusted intermediary between the guest VM and the underlying platform +that acts as a security manager. The host-side virtual machine monitor +(VMM) typically consists of a subset of traditional VMM features and +is still in charge of the guest lifecycle, i.e. create or destroy a CoCo +VM, manage its access to system resources, etc. However, since it +typically stays out of CoCo VM TCB, its access is limited to preserve the +security objectives. + +In the following diagram, the "<--->" lines represent bi-directional +communication channels or interfaces between the CoCo security manager and +the rest of the components (data flow for guest, host, hardware) :: + + +-------------------+ +-----------------------+ + | CoCo guest VM |<---->| | + +-------------------+ | | + | Interfaces | | CoCo security manager | + +-------------------+ | | + | Host VMM |<---->| | + +-------------------+ | | + | | + +--------------------+ | | + | CoCo platform |<--->| | + +--------------------+ +-----------------------+ + +The specific details of the CoCo security manager vastly diverge between +technologies. For example, in some cases, it will be implemented in HW +while in others it may be pure SW. + +Existing Linux kernel threat model +================================== + +The overall components of the current Linux kernel threat model are:: + + +-----------------------+ +-------------------+ + | |<---->| Userspace | + | | +-------------------+ + | External attack | | Interfaces | + | vectors | +-------------------+ + | |<---->| Linux Kernel | + | | +-------------------+ + +-----------------------+ +-------------------+ + | Bootloader/BIOS | + +-------------------+ + +-------------------+ + | HW platform | + +-------------------+ + +There is also communication between the bootloader and the kernel during +the boot process, but this diagram does not represent it explicitly. The +"Interfaces" box represents the various interfaces that allow +communication between kernel and userspace. This includes system calls, +kernel APIs, device drivers, etc. + +The existing Linux kernel threat model typically assumes execution on a +trusted HW platform with all of the firmware and bootloaders included on +its TCB. The primary attacker resides in the userspace, and all of the data +coming from there is generally considered untrusted, unless userspace is +privileged enough to perform trusted actions. In addition, external +attackers are typically considered, including those with access to enabled +external networks (e.g. Ethernet, Wireless, Bluetooth), exposed hardware +interfaces (e.g. USB, Thunderbolt), and the ability to modify the contents +of disks offline. + +Regarding external attack vectors, it is interesting to note that in most +cases external attackers will try to exploit vulnerabilities in userspace +first, but that it is possible for an attacker to directly target the +kernel; particularly if the host has physical access. Examples of direct +kernel attacks include the vulnerabilities CVE-2019-19524, CVE-2022-0435 +and CVE-2020-24490. + +Confidential Computing threat model and its security objectives +=============================================================== + +Confidential Computing adds a new type of attacker to the above list: a +potentially misbehaving host (which can also include some part of a +traditional VMM or all of it), which is typically placed outside of the +CoCo VM TCB due to its large SW attack surface. It is important to note +that this doesn’t imply that the host or VMM are intentionally +malicious, but that there exists a security value in having a small CoCo +VM TCB. This new type of adversary may be viewed as a more powerful type +of external attacker, as it resides locally on the same physical machine +(in contrast to a remote network attacker) and has control over the guest +kernel communication with most of the HW:: + + +------------------------+ + | CoCo guest VM | + +-----------------------+ | +-------------------+ | + | |<--->| | Userspace | | + | | | +-------------------+ | + | External attack | | | Interfaces | | + | vectors | | +-------------------+ | + | |<--->| | Linux Kernel | | + | | | +-------------------+ | + +-----------------------+ | +-------------------+ | + | | Bootloader/BIOS | | + +-----------------------+ | +-------------------+ | + | |<--->+------------------------+ + | | | Interfaces | + | | +------------------------+ + | CoCo security |<--->| Host/Host-side VMM | + | manager | +------------------------+ + | | +------------------------+ + | |<--->| CoCo platform | + +-----------------------+ +------------------------+ + +While traditionally the host has unlimited access to guest data and can +leverage this access to attack the guest, the CoCo systems mitigate such +attacks by adding security features like guest data confidentiality and +integrity protection. This threat model assumes that those features are +available and intact. + +The **Linux kernel CoCo VM security objectives** can be summarized as follows: + +1. Preserve the confidentiality and integrity of CoCo guest's private +memory and registers. + +2. Prevent privileged escalation from a host into a CoCo guest Linux kernel. +While it is true that the host (and host-side VMM) requires some level of +privilege to create, destroy, or pause the guest, part of the goal of +preventing privileged escalation is to ensure that these operations do not +provide a pathway for attackers to gain access to the guest's kernel. + +The above security objectives result in two primary **Linux kernel CoCo +VM assets**: + +1. Guest kernel execution context. +2. Guest kernel private memory. + +The host retains full control over the CoCo guest resources, and can deny +access to them at any time. Examples of resources include CPU time, memory +that the guest can consume, network bandwidth, etc. Because of this, the +host Denial of Service (DoS) attacks against CoCo guests are beyond the +scope of this threat model. + +The **Linux CoCo VM attack surface** is any interface exposed from a CoCo +guest Linux kernel towards an untrusted host that is not covered by the +CoCo technology SW/HW protection. This includes any possible +side-channels, as well as transient execution side channels. Examples of +explicit (not side-channel) interfaces include accesses to port I/O, MMIO +and DMA interfaces, access to PCI configuration space, VMM-specific +hypercalls (towards Host-side VMM), access to shared memory pages, +interrupts allowed to be injected into the guest kernel by the host, as +well as CoCo technology-specific hypercalls, if present. Additionally, the +host in a CoCo system typically controls the process of creating a CoCo +guest: it has a method to load into a guest the firmware and bootloader +images, the kernel image together with the kernel command line. All of this +data should also be considered untrusted until its integrity and +authenticity is established via attestation. + +The table below shows a threat matrix for the CoCo guest Linux kernel but +does not discuss potential mitigation strategies. The matrix refers to +CoCo-specific versions of the guest, host and platform. + +.. list-table:: CoCo Linux guest kernel threat matrix + :widths: auto + :align: center + :header-rows: 1 + + * - Threat name + - Threat description + + * - Guest malicious configuration + - A misbehaving host modifies one of the following guest's + configuration: + + 1. Guest firmware or bootloader + + 2. Guest kernel or module binaries + + 3. Guest command line parameters + + This allows the host to break the integrity of the code running + inside a CoCo guest, and violates the CoCo security objectives. + + * - CoCo guest data attacks + - A misbehaving host retains full control of the CoCo guest's data + in-transit between the guest and the host-managed physical or + virtual devices. This allows any attack against confidentiality, + integrity or freshness of such data. + + * - Malformed runtime input + - A misbehaving host injects malformed input via any communication + interface used by the guest's kernel code. If the code is not + prepared to handle this input correctly, this can result in a host + --> guest kernel privilege escalation. This includes traditional + side-channel and/or transient execution attack vectors. + + * - Malicious runtime input + - A misbehaving host injects a specific input value via any + communication interface used by the guest's kernel code. The + difference with the previous attack vector (malformed runtime input) + is that this input is not malformed, but its value is crafted to + impact the guest's kernel security. Examples of such inputs include + providing a malicious time to the guest or the entropy to the guest + random number generator. Additionally, the timing of such events can + be an attack vector on its own, if it results in a particular guest + kernel action (i.e. processing of a host-injected interrupt). + resistant to supplied host input. + |