From nobody Mon Feb 9 17:56:04 2026 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Received-SPF: pass (zohomail.com: domain of redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com; Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass; spf=pass (zohomail.com: domain of redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass(p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1665143088; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=XULyapsBq077KceAJTHWI4Zt9PtBAgzS6fkEbBhKWuEZVN2yop37Akj+90WuxIoAIU5krKuKY4NcYKGJfPYnY9GGpS1pN3PeaVcfPuCigDSRTVpOPvp4+oK0YZPmZq8Apau9waFXkMq7qA8JbI6m1CjYzAC19d1/yRQFeF8JHSU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1665143088; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:In-Reply-To:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Id:List-Archive:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Sender:Subject:To; bh=6CnqIDuUWlI5ebXO9lTuPphLrpV/fclL9bxhXeOXcxA=; b=lJhqza6ZcWacseUkOQ/ejo4448Bz0WNQOZvjUg1uuJbwBvm+eYNIvlVL4Qr3INO78aQEVl/R3Pge/lH5AID+SUjpISNekYa4gCYWSsNG6wV5NUt9hWUYICqoCi27CY8zboFBXvBnSkXCXvLtBp5N3yn/XbI1U11t5AERNRUrvmE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass; spf=pass (zohomail.com: domain of redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass header.from= (p=none dis=none) Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1665143088100817.0780578767664; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 04:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-147-KfkohrosMOu0l-bXq9NQLQ-1; Fri, 07 Oct 2022 07:44:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5731C07555; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (unknown [10.30.29.100]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B5A4B400F; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF8E194707B; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.8]) by mm-prod-listman-01.mail-001.prod.us-east-1.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1ED1947B8F for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id E2276C15995; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain.com (unknown [10.33.36.42]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA26C15BA4; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:43:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1665143082; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=6CnqIDuUWlI5ebXO9lTuPphLrpV/fclL9bxhXeOXcxA=; b=TvZHoOMixgAi2xSCbECwyEbrrlI8TGv/N3TfoDk3Ksdp0a79LxP5yR3mQvKY2IE4+2880a mWlsoETpotJHbkSNy2uwrZksbJsUV7uRvjWHQ6IPPqFnwo0lC2hMn2s/uGY57LQ5hh3fCa guL+E1qIJ0arvAUe6c1z1eKLIKqxJCg= X-MC-Unique: KfkohrosMOu0l-bXq9NQLQ-1 X-Original-To: libvir-list@listman.corp.redhat.com From: =?UTF-8?q?Daniel=20P=2E=20Berrang=C3=A9?= To: libvir-list@redhat.com Subject: [libvirt PATCH 12/12] docs/manpages: add checklist of problems for SEV attestation Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 12:43:07 +0100 Message-Id: <20221007114307.1461861-13-berrange@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20221007114307.1461861-1-berrange@redhat.com> References: <20221007114307.1461861-1-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.8 X-BeenThere: libvir-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussions about the libvirt library & tools List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com Sender: "libvir-list" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMail-DKIM: pass (identity @redhat.com) X-ZM-MESSAGEID: 1665143090274100001 Despite efforts to make the virt-qemu-sev-validate tool friendly, it is a certainty that almost everyone who tries it will hit false negative results, getting a failure despite the VM being trustworthy. Diagnosing these problems is no easy matter, especially for those not familiar with SEV/SEV-ES in general. This extra docs text attempts to set out a checklist of items to look at to identify what went wrong. Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 --- docs/manpages/virt-qemu-sev-validate.rst | 112 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 112 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/manpages/virt-qemu-sev-validate.rst b/docs/manpages/virt-= qemu-sev-validate.rst index 7542bea9aa..e0c18f2d20 100644 --- a/docs/manpages/virt-qemu-sev-validate.rst +++ b/docs/manpages/virt-qemu-sev-validate.rst @@ -437,6 +437,118 @@ inject a disk password on success: --domain fedora34x86_64 \ --disk-password passwd.txt =20 +COMMON MISTAKES CHECKLIST +=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D + +The complexity of configuring a guest and validating its boot measurement +means it is very likely to see the failure:: + + ERROR: Measurement does not match, VM is not trustworthy + +This error message assumes the worst, but in most cases will failure will = be +a result of either mis-configuring the guest, or passing the wrong informa= tion +when trying to validate it. The following information is a guide for what +items to check in order to stand the best chance of diagnosing the problem + +* Check the VM configuration for the DH certificate and session + blob in the libvirt guest XML. + + The content for these fields should be in base64 format, which is + what ``sevctl session`` generates. Other tools may generate the files + in binary format, so ensure it has been correctly converted to base64. + +* Check the VM configuration policy value matches the session blob + + The ```` value in libvirt guest XML has to match the value + passed to the ``sevctl session`` command. + +* Check the correct TIK/TEK keypair are passed + + The TIK/TEK keypair are uniquely tied to each DH cert and session + blob. Make sure that the TIK/TEK keypair passed to this program + the ones matched to the DH cert and session blob configured for + the libvirt guest XML. This is one of the most common mistakes. + Further ensure that the TIK and TEK files are not swapped. + +* Check the firmware binary matches the one used to boot + + The firmware binary content is part of the data covered by the + launch measurement. Ensure that the firmware binary passed to + this program matches the one used to launch the guest. The + hypervisor host will periodically get software updates which + introduce a new firmware binary version. + +* Check the kernel, initrd and cmdline match the one used to boot + + If the guest is configured to use direct kernel boot, check that + the kernel, initrd and cmdline passed to this program match the + ones used to boot the guest. In the kernel cmdline whitespace + must be preserved exactly, including any leading or trailing + spaces. + +* Check whether the kernel hash measurement is enabled + + The ``kernelHashes`` property in the libvirt guest XML controls + whether hashes of the kernel, initrd and cmdline content are + covered by the boot measurement. If enabled, then the matching + content must be passed to this program. UIf disabled, then + the content must **NOT** be passed. + +* Check that the correct measurement hash is passed + + The measurement hash includes a nonce, so it will be different + on every boot attempt. Thus when validating the measuremnt it + is important ensure the most recent measurement is used. + +* Check the correct VMSA blobs / CPU SKU values for the host are used + + The VMSA blobs provide the initial register state for the + boot CPU and any additional CPUs. One of the registers + encodes the CPU SKU (family, model, stepping) of the physical + host CPU. Make sure that the VMSA blob used for validation + is one that matches the SKU of the host the guest is booted + on. Passing the CPU SKU values directly to the tool can + reduce the likelihood of using the wrong ones. + +* Check the CPU count is correct + + When passing VMSA blobs for SEV-ES guests, the number of CPUs + present will influence the measurement result. Ensure that the + correct vCPU count is used corresponding to the guest boot + attempt. + + +Best practice is to run this tool in completely offline mode and pass +all information as explicit command line parameters. When debugging +failures, however, it can be useful to tell it to connect to libvirt +and fetch information. If connecting to a remote libvirt instance, +it will fetch any information that can be trusted, which is the basic +VM launch state data. It will also sanity check the XML configuration +to identify some common mistakes. If the ``--insecure`` flag is passed +it can extract some configuration information and use that for the +attestation process. + +If the mistake still can't be identified, then this tool can be run +on the virtualization host. In that scenario the only three command +line parameters required are for the TIK, TEK and libvirt domain +name. It should be able to automatically determine all the other +information required. If it still reports a failure, this points +very strongly to the TIK/TEK pair not maching the configured +DH certificate and session blob. + +The ``--debug`` flag will display hashes and/or hex dumps for various +pieces of information used in the attestation process. Comparing the +``--debug`` output from running on the hypervisor host, against that +obtained when running in offline mode can give further guidance to +which parameter is inconsistent. + +As mentioned earlier in this document, bear in mind that in general +any attestation answers obtained from running on the hypervisor host +should not be trusted. So if a configuration mistake is identified +it is strongly recommended to re-run the attestation in offline mode +on a trusted machine. + + =20 EXIT STATUS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 --=20 2.37.3