| Message ID | 166377436599.430546.9691226328917294997.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce security commands for CXL pmem device | expand |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:32:46 -0700 Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote: > Add support to emulate a CXL mem device support the "passphrase secure > erase" operation. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > --- > tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > index 840378d239bf..a0a58156c15a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c > @@ -356,6 +356,59 @@ static int mock_unlock_security(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd > return 0; > } > > +static int mock_passphrase_erase(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) > +{ > + struct cxl_mock_mem_pdata *mdata = dev_get_platdata(cxlds->dev); > + struct cxl_pass_erase *erase; > + > + if (cmd->size_in != sizeof(*erase)) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (cmd->size_out != 0) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_FROZEN) { > + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; > + return -ENXIO; > + } > + I think we need to check also that the passphrase supplied is not the master one in which case the lockout on user passphrase shouldn't matter. > + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT) { > + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; > + return -ENXIO; > + } > + > + erase = cmd->payload_in; > + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER && > + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PASS_SET && > + memcmp(mdata->master_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { > + if (++mdata->master_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) It's harmless, but I'm not sure I like the adding to this when we've already hit the limit. Maybe only increment if not? > + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PLIMIT; > + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; > + return -ENXIO; > + } > + > + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER && > + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET && > + memcmp(mdata->user_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { > + if (++mdata->user_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) > + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT; > + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; > + return -ENXIO; > + } > + > + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER) { > + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; > + mdata->user_limit = 0; I think it would be more logical to set this to zero as part of the password testing block above rather than down here. I also 'think' the user passphrase is wiped even if the secure erase was done with the master key. "The user passphrase shall be disabled after secure erase, but the master passphrase, if set, shall be unchanged" doesn't say anything about only if the user passphrase was the one used to perform the erase. > + memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); > + } else if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER) { > + mdata->master_limit = 0; > + } > + > + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_LOCKED; > + > + return 0; > +} > +
On 11/7/2022 7:35 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2022 08:32:46 -0700 > Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote: > >> Add support to emulate a CXL mem device support the "passphrase secure >> erase" operation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c >> index 840378d239bf..a0a58156c15a 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c >> @@ -356,6 +356,59 @@ static int mock_unlock_security(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static int mock_passphrase_erase(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) >> +{ >> + struct cxl_mock_mem_pdata *mdata = dev_get_platdata(cxlds->dev); >> + struct cxl_pass_erase *erase; >> + >> + if (cmd->size_in != sizeof(*erase)) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (cmd->size_out != 0) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_FROZEN) { >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; >> + return -ENXIO; >> + } >> + > > I think we need to check also that the passphrase supplied is not the > master one in which case the lockout on user passphrase shouldn't matter. Ok. > >> + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT) { >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; >> + return -ENXIO; >> + } >> + >> + erase = cmd->payload_in; >> + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER && >> + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PASS_SET && >> + memcmp(mdata->master_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { >> + if (++mdata->master_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) > > It's harmless, but I'm not sure I like the adding to this when we've already > hit the limit. Maybe only increment if not? I'll rework the whole thing and have helper function to handle this since it's used in quite a few places. > >> + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PLIMIT; >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; >> + return -ENXIO; >> + } >> + >> + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER && >> + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET && >> + memcmp(mdata->user_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { >> + if (++mdata->user_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) >> + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT; >> + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; >> + return -ENXIO; >> + } >> + >> + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER) { >> + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; >> + mdata->user_limit = 0; > > I think it would be more logical to set this to zero as part of the password > testing block above rather than down here. > > I also 'think' the user passphrase is wiped even if the secure erase was > done with the master key. > "The user passphrase shall be disabled after secure erase, but the master passphrase, if set, shall > be unchanged" doesn't say anything about only if the user passphrase was the one used to > perform the erase. Yeah I'll rework this part. > >> + memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); >> + } else if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER) { >> + mdata->master_limit = 0; >> + } >> + >> + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_LOCKED; >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> + > > >
diff --git a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c index 840378d239bf..a0a58156c15a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c +++ b/tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c @@ -356,6 +356,59 @@ static int mock_unlock_security(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd return 0; } +static int mock_passphrase_erase(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) +{ + struct cxl_mock_mem_pdata *mdata = dev_get_platdata(cxlds->dev); + struct cxl_pass_erase *erase; + + if (cmd->size_in != sizeof(*erase)) + return -EINVAL; + + if (cmd->size_out != 0) + return -EINVAL; + + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_FROZEN) { + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; + return -ENXIO; + } + + if (mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT) { + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_SECURITY; + return -ENXIO; + } + + erase = cmd->payload_in; + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER && + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PASS_SET && + memcmp(mdata->master_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { + if (++mdata->master_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_MASTER_PLIMIT; + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; + return -ENXIO; + } + + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER && + mdata->security_state & CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET && + memcmp(mdata->user_pass, erase->pass, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN)) { + if (++mdata->user_limit == PASS_TRY_LIMIT) + mdata->security_state |= CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PLIMIT; + cmd->return_code = CXL_MBOX_CMD_RC_PASSPHRASE; + return -ENXIO; + } + + if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_USER) { + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_USER_PASS_SET; + mdata->user_limit = 0; + memset(mdata->user_pass, 0, NVDIMM_PASSPHRASE_LEN); + } else if (erase->type == CXL_PMEM_SEC_PASS_MASTER) { + mdata->master_limit = 0; + } + + mdata->security_state &= ~CXL_PMEM_SEC_STATE_LOCKED; + + return 0; +} + static int mock_get_lsa(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd *cmd) { struct cxl_mbox_get_lsa *get_lsa = cmd->payload_in; @@ -464,6 +517,9 @@ static int cxl_mock_mbox_send(struct cxl_dev_state *cxlds, struct cxl_mbox_cmd * case CXL_MBOX_OP_UNLOCK: rc = mock_unlock_security(cxlds, cmd); break; + case CXL_MBOX_OP_PASSPHRASE_ERASE: + rc = mock_passphrase_erase(cxlds, cmd); + break; default: break; }
Add support to emulate a CXL mem device support the "passphrase secure erase" operation. Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> --- tools/testing/cxl/test/mem.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)