Hide Forgot
Description of problem: With virtualization-based security enabled, Windows will try to use the Secure MOR feature for "platform reset attack mitigation": https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/device-guard-requirements https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Platform-Reset-Attack-Mitigation-Specification.pdf Here's the relevant code in winload.efi: winload!BlTcgFwSetAndLockMemoryOverwriteRequestControl: [...] 00000001`40071d91 lea r12,[winload!`string' (00000001`4012b890)] ^ "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" 00000001`40071d98 mov rdx,r15 00000001`40071d9b mov rcx,r12 00000001`40071d9e lea r9,[rbp+48h] 00000001`40071da2 lea r8,[rbp+40h] 00000001`40071da6 call winload!EfiGetVariable 00000001`40071dab cmp eax,0C0000023h 00000001`40071db0 je 00000001`40071ed1 ; not taken 00000001`40071db6 test eax,eax 00000001`40071db8 js 00000001`40071dc7 ; not taken 00000001`40071dba cmp qword ptr [rbp+48h],1 00000001`40071dbf jne 00000001`40071ed1 ; not taken 00000001`40071dc5 test eax,eax 00000001`40071dc7 setns bl ; bl <- 1 00000001`40071dca mov dl,bl 00000001`40071dcc call winload!BlTcgFwSetMemoryOverwriteRequestBit 00000001`40071dd1 test eax,eax 00000001`40071dd3 jns 00000001`40071dde ; not taken 00000001`40071dd5 test bl,bl 00000001`40071dd7 je 00000001`40071de2 ; not taken 00000001`40071dd9 jmp 00000001`40071ed6 [...] 00000001`40071de2 xor eax,eax ; success [...] 00000001`40071ed6 add rsp,30h [epilog] winload!EfiGetVariable returns NTSTATUS (sign bit set on failure). BlTcgFwSetMemoryOverwriteRequestBit accesses the "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" variable and returns NTSTATUS also. OVMF exposes MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock but, unless SecurityPkg/Tcg/MemoryOverwriteControl/TcgMor.inf is enabled, not MemoryOverwriteRequestControl. Windows therefore succeeds in reading MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock at 00000001`40071da6 above, remembers this fact in bl and BlTcgFwSetMemoryOverwriteRequestBit makes the whole thing fail. This bubbles up and leads to a "The virtualization-based security enablement policy check at phase 0 failed with status: The object was not found." error message in system event log. Had MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock not been found and the call at 00000001`40071da6 failed, the branch at 00000001`40071dd7 would have been taken and everything would be fine (i.e. oh well, the platform does not support MOR, never mind and carry on). This has been confirmed by rebuilding OVMF with: --- a/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/TcgMorLockSmm.c +++ b/MdeModulePkg/Universal/Variable/RuntimeDxe/TcgMorLockSmm.c @@ -390,5 +390,6 @@ MorLockInit ( // // Set variable to report capability to OS // - return SetMorLockVariable (0); + return EFI_SUCCESS; } and verified that Windows then enables virtualization-based security. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ovmf-20170228-5.gitc325e41585e3.el7 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install Windows Server 2016 or Windows 10 64-bit Enterprise (note that the edition is important here) on an OVMF-based VM. 2. Enable secure boot. 3. Run the Device Guard and Credential Guard hardware readiness tool to enable DG https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53337 4. Reboot as instructed. Actual results: Run msinfo32.exe and see "Device Guard Virtualization based security" is marked as enabled but not running in "System Summary". Go to Event Viewer and find the following messages in Windows Logs -> System: "The virtualization-based security enablement policy check at phase 0 failed with status: The object was not found." "Credential Guard (LsaIso.exe) is configured but the secure kernel is not running; continuing without Credential Guard." Expected results: "Device Guard Virtualization based security" is marked as running. No kernel errors in event log. Readiness tool run with -Ready is all green. Additional info: The ask here is to either enable the MOR module in OVMF builds or make sure that reading MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock *without* the MOR module compiled in returns EFI_NOT_FOUND as expected.
I remember reading (and writing) about MemoryOverwriteRequestControl. I've found the following references now: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-07/msg04546.html > (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. The following Intel whitepaper also discusses it (I think I've only read v1 of this paper yet, and MOR appeared first in v2): https://github.com/tianocore/tianocore.github.io/wiki/EDK-II-white-papers https://github.com/tianocore-docs/Docs/raw/master/White_Papers/A_Tour_Beyond_BIOS_Implementing_UEFI_Authenticated_Variables_in_SMM_with_EDKII_V2.pdf I'll have to read up on this material first. Thanks!
(In reply to Laszlo Ersek from comment #2) > [...] > I'll have to read up on this material first. Thanks! Thank you! This is by no means urgent, I have unblocked myself by rebuilding OVMF with the hack in comment 0. Also, feel free assign back to me with high-level instructions -- I'll be happy to write a patch and/or test it.
Here's my understanding: (1) The "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" variable comes from the "TCG Platform Reset Attack Mitigation Specification". (2) The "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" variable is a Microsoft-only addition, from <https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/bringup/device-guard-requirements>. (Thanks for the link in comment 1.) (3) From staring at the disassembly, it looks like the code intends to cope with the following cases: - "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" present, "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" present (set the former and lock it with the latter) - "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" present, "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" missing (I guess in this case it still sets the former but doesn't lock it via the latter) - "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" missing, "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" missing (no support for MOR at all) It fails when the variables are inconsistent, namely "MemoryOverwriteRequestControl" is missing, but "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" is present. I agree this is invalid, in particular because Microsoft (very correctly) introduced "MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock" under a new variable namespace GUID (namely BB983CCF-151D-40E1-A07B-4A17BE168292), so they effectively *own* the variable. If platform firmware sets a variable that Microsoft specifies, then the variable should satisfy the constraints and other bits of that specification. I think that the current edk2 code does not consider the three possible levels of support for these variables: - no support for either of MemoryOverwriteRequestControl / MemoryOverwriteRequestControlLock - support for MemoryOverwriteRequestControl only - support for both. I'll start an upstream thread and CC you.
[edk2] multiple levels of support for MOR / MORLock https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-September/015444.html http://mid.mail-archive.com/039cf353-80fb-9f20-6ad2-f52517ab4de7@redhat.com
Posted [edk2] [PATCH 0/6] MdeModulePkg/VariableSmm: fix MOR / MorLock inconsistency Message-Id: <20171003212834.25740-1-lersek@redhat.com> https://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/2017-October/015547.html
Fixed in upstream commit range 35ac962b5473..fda8f631edbb.
Ladi, can you please provide verification instructions for virt-QE? (If you have a separate BZ for enabling Device Guard, and you've already written up the instructions under that BZ, please just leave a pointer. ... It might make sense to make that BZ dependent on this one, too, or else to cross-reference them at least, using the "See Also" field.) Thanks!
(In reply to Laszlo Ersek from comment #9) > Ladi, can you please provide verification instructions for virt-QE? Apologies for the delay, I'll do it as soon as a RHEL kernel with the SMM fixes is available for testing. Thanks!
Bug 1488203 is now in MODIFIED state and kernel-3.10.0-809.el7.x86_64.rpm has the SMM fix. I am providing verification instructions as promised. 1. Set up a host with: kernel-3.10.0-809.el7 qemu-kvm-rhev-2.10.0-11.el7 ovmf-20171011-1.git92d07e48907f.el7 Make sure that the kvm-intel kernel module is loaded with nested=1 2. Download a 64-bit Win10 ISO from MSDN, one that has the Enterprise SKU. I used: en_windows_10_multiple_editions_version_1703_updated_july_2017_x64_dvd_10925340.iso 3. Create a new virtual drive: $ qemu-img create -f qcow2 win10.qcow2 20G 4. Run QEMU, modifying paths as necessary: /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm \ -machine q35 \ -cpu host,hv-relaxed,hv_spinlocks=0x2000,hv_time,vmx,invtsc \ -drive id=drive_image1,if=none,cache=none,snapshot=off,aio=threads,format=qcow2,file=/home/win10.qcow2 \ -enable-kvm \ -m 4G \ -smp 2 \ -drive id=drive_cd1,if=none,cache=none,snapshot=off,aio=threads,media=cdrom,file=/home/en_windows_10_multiple_editions_version_1703_updated_july_2017_x64_dvd_10925340.iso \ -drive id=drive_cd2,if=none,cache=none,snapshot=off,aio=threads,media=cdrom,file=/usr/share/OVMF/UefiShell.iso \ -device ide-cd,id=cd1,drive=drive_cd1,bus=ide.0,unit=0 \ -device ide-cd,id=cd2,drive=drive_cd2,bus=ide.1,unit=0 \ -device qxl-vga,id=video0,ram_size=67108864,vram_size=67108864,vgamem_mb=16 \ -no-hpet \ -monitor stdio \ -device e1000e,netdev=netdev1 \ -netdev user,id=netdev1 \ -global ICH9-LPC.disable_s3=1 -global ICH9-LPC.disable_s4=1 \ -device ide-hd,drive=drive_image1,id=virtio-disk0,bootindex=1 \ -drive unit=0,if=pflash,format=raw,readonly,file=/usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd \ -drive unit=1,if=pflash,format=raw,file=/usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_VARS.fd \ -vnc 0.0.0.0:1 5. Install certificates by executing the following in the UEFI shell: Shell> FS0: FS0:\> EnrollDefaultKeys.efi 6. Install Windows, make sure to install the Enterprise edition. 7. Download the Device Guard and Credential Guard hardware readiness tool from: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=53337 and unzip it in the guest. 8. In the guest open a PowerShell window and run: > DG_Readiness_Tool_{version}.ps1 -Enable 9. Reboot. To verify that Device Guard is really enabled use either: > DG_Readiness_Tool_{version}.ps1 -Ready or > C:\Windows\System32\msinfo32.exe (look for Device Guard in the System Summary screen) With older OVMF without this fix you won't see Device Guard enabled and should be able to find an entry in the Event Viewer (Windows Logs -> System) similar to: "The virtualization-based security enablement policy check at phase 0 failed with status: The object was not found."
Great, thank you!
Ladi, According to comment12, I cann't load this script (DG_Readiness_Tool_{version}.ps1 script( -Enable) inside guest. I attached a guest screenshot. Could you help me check it? Thanks!
Created attachment 1367099 [details] DG_Readiness fail
In addition, I tested it with OVMF-20171011-4.git92d07e48907f.el7.noarch.
Hi, (In reply to FuXiangChun from comment #14) > Ladi, > > According to comment12, I cann't load this script > (DG_Readiness_Tool_{version}.ps1 script( -Enable) inside guest. I attached > a guest screenshot. Could you help me check it? Thanks! Running Set-ExecutionPolicy -ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted in the PowerShell window should fix it.
Thanks Ladi, According to comment17, DG_Readiness_Tool_{version}.ps1 -Enable & Set-ExecutionPolicy -ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted execution is successful. I added 2 screenshots to attachment. I will set this bug as verified. If it is wrong, please let me know.
Created attachment 1367955 [details] fix screenshot-1
Created attachment 1367956 [details] fix screenshot-2
(In reply to FuXiangChun from comment #20) > Created attachment 1367956 [details] > fix screenshot-2 "HVCI is not running" - that doesn't look right. What do you see when you run msinfo32.exe (check the last ~10 lines of comment 12)? Thanks!
Created attachment 1368040 [details] Expected output of DG_Readiness_Tool_v3.2.ps1 -Ready
Ladi, You are right, I also found "HVCI is not running". I try to execute DG_Readiness_Tool_v3.2.ps1 -Capable -HVCI, But still "HVCI is not running". Do you have any good idea?
Created attachment 1370959 [details] Capable-HVCI
Created attachment 1370973 [details] msinfo32
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2018:0902
For the record, I've also run into some trouble with enabling VBS. The key error message was in the Event Viewer: > Hypervisor launch failed; Processor does not provide the features > necessary to run the hypervisor (leaf 0x1, register 0x2: features > needed 0x7FFA3223, features supported 0xFFFA3223). This error message identifies bit#31 (value 0x8000_0000) in CPUID EAX=1 ("leaf 1") / ECX ("register 2"). This bit is the "hypervisor present" bit, per <https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1009458>. When my Windows 10 Enterprise 2015 LTSB N guest (v1507, aka build 10.0.10240) sees that this bit is present, it rejects starting the Hyper-V role. (It refuses to run nested.) But this bit can be hidden with the following domain XML snippet: <domain ...> <cpu ...> <feature policy='disable' name='hypervisor'/> </cpu> </domain> With this domain XML tweak, VBS is enabled OK for me (Credential-Guard and HVCI are running, according to "DG_Readiness_Tool_v3.2.ps1 -Ready", and "msinfo32.exe" reports "Device Guard Virtualization based security" as "running").