From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
To: "Jiewen Yao" <jiewen.yao@intel.com>,
"Stefan Berger" <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Javier Martinez Canillas" <javierm@redhat.com>,
"Peter Jones" <pjones@redhat.com>,
"Marc-André Lureau" <marcandre.lureau@redhat.com>,
"Amarnath Valluri" <amarnath.valluri@intel.com>
Cc: edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
qemu devel list <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: investigating TPM for OVMF-on-QEMU
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 20:04:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eef9a031-36e9-0443-1d73-30a49df02e9a@redhat.com> (raw)
Hi,
I spent most of today reading TPM related material (specs, guides and
source code), and below I'd like to describe what I think should be our
initial attack on enabling TPM on QEMU/OVMF.
(1) Versions of UEFI abstractions regarding TPM (very roughly speaking):
There have been three sets of specs for this, and accordingly,
edk2's SecurityPkg/Tcg/ directory supports each set. We can call
these TPM1, TrEE, and TPM2.
- TPM1 was the initial TPM thing, supporting only SHA-1, and is now
obsolete.
- TrEE was Microsoft's own update to the TPM1 software interfaces,
supporting TPM2 hardware with more hash algorithms, and is now
obsolete. Because,
- TPM2 is basically the standardized version of TrEE, the most
recent set of specs, and what we should focus on.
(2) Drivers (and features) in edk2/SecurityPkg/Tcg.
There are 19 modules under SecurityPkg/Tcg/. Let me categorize them.
In each category, I'll try to list modules in loosely increasing
dependency (or PI/UEFI phase) order.
(2a) Modules that are obsolete because they are tied to TPM1:
TcgPei/TcgPei.inf
PhysicalPresencePei/PhysicalPresencePei.inf
TcgDxe/TcgDxe.inf
TcgConfigDxe/TcgConfigDxe.inf
TcgSmm/TcgSmm.inf
The TPM enablement instructions at
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/How-to-Enable-Security#Enabling_Trusted_Compute_Module_TPM
are written up in terms of these modules, but that doesn't obsolete
the article too much.
(2b) Modules that are obsolete due to being tied to TrEE:
TrEEConfig/TrEEConfigPei.inf
TrEEPei/TrEEPei.inf
TrEEDxe/TrEEDxe.inf
TrEEConfig/TrEEConfigDxe.inf
TrEESmm/TrEESmm.inf
There is a great Intel whitepaper called
A Tour Beyond BIOS with the UEFI TPM2 Support in EDKII
which is written in terms of TrEE and these modules, explaining how
they supersede TPM1 and the modules under (2a).
This whitepaper seems to apply to the most recent TPM2 stack as
well (mostly just replace TrEE references with TPM2 references), so
it is very useful.
(2c) Modules that call themselves obsolete or deprecated (without being
obviously tied to TPM1 or TrEE):
MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock/TcgMorLockSmm.inf
(2d) Modules that we won't need due to no hardware support in QEMU:
Opal/OpalPasswordDxe/OpalPasswordDxe.inf
Opal/OpalPasswordSmm/OpalPasswordSmm.inf
TCG's "Opal" seems to be about self-encrypting drives, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opal_Storage_Specification
so these modules are not relevant for us.
(2e) Modules that we should use. Again, in increasing order of
dependence. And here I'll comment as well on what these do:
Tcg2Config/Tcg2ConfigPei.inf -- Informs the firmware globally
about the TPM device type. This
module can perform device
detection or read a cached value
from a non-volatile UEFI
variable.
Tcg2Pei/Tcg2Pei.inf -- Initializes the TPM device and
measures the firmware volumes in
the PEI phase into the TPM's
platform config registers.
Tcg2Dxe/Tcg2Dxe.inf -- Measures DXE phase (and later)
modules into the TPM's PCRs, and
also lets the OS boot loader
measure things, by exposing the
EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL.
Tcg2Config/Tcg2ConfigDxe.inf -- Provides a Setup TUI interface to
configure the TPM. IIUC, it can
also save the configured TPM type
for subsequent boots (see
Tcg2ConfigPei.inf above).
This driver stack supports the TIS (MMIO) hardware interface, which
is advertized to the OS in the TPM2 ACPI Table's "start method"
field with value 6. (The according macro is TPM2_START_METHOD_MMIO
in the QEMU source code, and EFI_TPM2_ACPI_TABLE_START_METHOD_TIS
in the edk2 source code.)
Including these drivers should result in a functional
EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL, which is what OS boot loaders primarily care
about, as I understand.
Importantly, the driver stack above requires PEI-phase variable
access, therefore
<https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386> must be solved
first.
(I have had patches for said BZ ready for a while. I've failed to
upstream them thus far because a pflash-based varstore is a hard
requirement for them. I think that's a natural requirement, but
thus far my arguments haven't proved compelling enough.)
Here I should mention some ACPI and hardware aspects. Under TPM1
(whose ACPI table was called "TCPA"), the TPM events (measurements
I think) were logged in a reserved memory area described by the
TCPA table. Under TPM2, the "TPM2" ACPI table does no such thing,
it only helps identify the communication characteristics of the
device, and the event log itself is accessible to the OS boot
loader via the EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL.
(If you are curious how a legacy BIOS boot loader is supposed to
read the event log from a TPM2-only device (no "TCPA" table): I
don't have the slightest clue.)
I'm not sure about the exact characteristics of the virtual TPM
that Stefan's swtpm project:
https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm
combined with Amarnath's pending QEMU patches:
http://mid.mail-archive.com/1496666711-14630-1-git-send-email-amarnath.valluri@intel.com
will expose to the guest. What I do know is that the current QEMU
solution, which mostly forwards a physical (host) TPM to the guest,
produces a "TPM2" ACPI table if said host TPM device is TPM2. The
"TPM2" table is exposed to the guest OS with OVMF's help, and has
the following fields:
- address of control area: zero
- start method: 6 (TIS plus Cancel)
- platform specific params: none.
This implies that neither ACPI activation (method 2) nor Command
Response Buffer activation (method 7) nor a combination of these
two (method 8) is available in QEMU.
And that should be just fine, because both Linux and the above
Tcg2* modules appear to support this (from reading, not from
testing).
(2f) Modules that we *could* use, but *should not*, at this point:
MemoryOverwriteControl/TcgMor.inf
MOR is "Memory Overwrite Request". It is a feature specified
separately, in another TCG specification ("Platform Reset Attack
Mitigation"), and it is optional for a firmware platform to
support. (For example, as far as I can see, Linux doesn't even try
to detect or use it.) If you care about the threat model and how
MOR mitigates that threat, please read the spec on the TCG website.
For initial TPM enablement in OVMF, we should avoid MOR support.
The module above initializes the "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl"
variable, which is one third of the MOR implementation.
Tcg2Smm/Tcg2Smm.inf
This is a complex driver that we *should not* use at this point:
(2f1) It installs two ACPI tables. One of those is a "TPM2" ACPI
table, according to the detected / configured TPM device (see
under (2e). This "TPM2" table would conflict with -- or more
precisely, duplicate -- the "TPM2" table already generated by
QEMU, and installed by OVMF.
(2f2) The other ACPI table is an SSDT which provides a _DSM (Device
Specific Method) to the guest OS. Whenever the _DSM is
called, the firmware is entered (via SMI/SMM), and the OS
request is handled. Three sets of functions are provided:
(2f2a) TCG Hardware Information. Not needed by the guest
OS(es), the TIS+Cancel start method is sufficient.
(2f2b) TCG Memory Clear Interface. This is the second third
of the MOR feature I mentioned above. It saves the OS
request in the "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl"
variable (only writeable in SMM).
Upon next boot, OVMF's PlatformPei would have to clear
all memory -- this would be the last third of the MOR
feature; see under:
https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/How-to-Enable-Security#Enabling_Trusted_Compute_Module_TPM
However, clearing all memory in OVMF's PlatformPei
would be a *real* pain, as we are limited to the
32-bit address space there (yes, even if OVMF's PEI
phase is built in 64-bit mode). In physical firmware,
where DRAM takes actual hardware initialization, the
clearing can likely occur without entering long mode
and setting up large page tables (e.g., the memory
controller itself could be programmed with IO
accesses), so in this case physical firmware has it
easier.
Again, Linux doesn't care about MOR.
(2f2c) TCG Physical Presence Interface. The OS can queue TPM
operations (?) that require Physical Presence, and at
next boot, OVMF's PlatformBootManagerLib (in the BDS
phase) would have to dispatch those pending
operations. (The queueing again happens in protected
non-volatile UEFI variables -- writeable only in SMM.)
This is of dubious usefulness, and presents extra
complication for OVMF. Said dispatching is supposed to
occur *before* signaling the end-of-DXE event group
(according to the Intel whitepaper mentioned above),
but *after* the console is ready (according to the
wiki article linked above). However, OVMF *already*
signals the end-of-DXE event group in
PlatformBootManagerBeforeConsole(), that is, *before*
the console is ready. Many things are orchestrated
around end-of-DXE, so moving around its signaling
looks difficult.
Also, while Linux appears to be capable of using
Physical Presence, it is again optional, and I suggest
to ignore it at first.
In brief, by not including these two modules, we avoid a "TPM2"
ACPI table duplication. We also turn off the Memory Overwrite
Request and Physical Presence Interface features -- which are both
optional, as far as I can see, and very messy for OVMF's platform
code.
(3) Drivers (and features) that are *not in edk2/SecurityPkg/Tcg:
The Intel whitepaper discusses (and Peter also mentioned earlier)
"dTPM" versus "fTPM".
"dTPM" is basically TPM provided in publicly specified hardware,
where the firmware can offer support, such as EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL, but
the OS can also directly drive the hardware. This is what QEMU
offers with the TIS+Cancel start method (value 6). (The "Command
Response Buffer" start method (value 7) would also qualify as
"dTPM"). When the platform provides "dTPM", the _DSM method
described above *may* be offered, but it is not required.
"fTPM" is where the hardware is completely hidden from the OS, and
is implemented fully in firmware. The corresponding start method
values are 2 ("ACPI") and 8 ("ACPI with CRB"). In this case, the
_DSM method is *required*.
To my understanding, edk2 contains no "fTPM" implementation. The
in-tree drivers recognize hardware that describes itself as
TIS+Cancel (6) or CRB (7). Pure ACPI variants are neither recognized
nor offered.
I think TIS+Cancel / dTPM is the best match: the emulated TPM has to
be implemented in virtual hardware (not just faked within the guest,
in RAM), so that QEMU can secure the sensitive stuff from guest
kernel level access.
I'm going to link this post from
<https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=594>; please consider
registering in the TianoCore BZ and subscribing to that bug. Discussion
should occur on the list(s), but it's nice to capture separate threads
and distilled ideas in the BZ.
Thanks
Laszlo
next reply other threads:[~2017-07-14 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-14 18:04 Laszlo Ersek [this message]
2017-07-14 20:30 ` investigating TPM for OVMF-on-QEMU Peter Jones
2017-07-14 21:31 ` Laszlo Ersek
2017-07-17 2:03 ` Yao, Jiewen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eef9a031-36e9-0443-1d73-30a49df02e9a@redhat.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox