linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Add support for hwrng found on some powernv systems

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <029A8D6C-C23C-42B2-8C26-D76B59E2C9DD@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:08:47 +0200
From:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
To:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: PPC: Book3S: Add support for hwrng found on some powernv systems


On 02.10.2013, at 15:57, Michael Ellerman wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 13:02 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:50:50AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 02.10.2013, at 11:11, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> 
>>> So how do you solve live migration between a kernel that has this patch and one that doesn't?
>>> 
>> Yes, I alluded to it in my email to Paul and Paolo asked also. How this
>> interface is disabled? 
> 
> Yes that is a valid point.
> 
> We can't disable the interface at runtime, the guest detects its
> presence at boot.
> 
> What will happen is the hcall will come through to QEMU, which will
> reject it with H_FUNCTION (~= ENOSYS).
> 
> The current pseries-rng driver does not handle that case well, which is
> exactly why I sent patches to fix it recently.
> 
> The only other option would be to feed it with /dev/random.
> 
>> Also hwrnd is MMIO in a host why guest needs to
>> use hypercall instead of emulating the device (in kernel or somewhere
>> else?). 
> 
> Because PAPR is a platform specification and it specifies that the
> interface is a hypervisor call. We can't just decide we want to do it
> differently.
> 
>> Another things is that on a host hwrnd is protected from
>> direct userspace access by virtue of been a device, but guest code (event
>> kernel mode) is userspace as far as hosts security model goes, so by
>> implementing this hypercall in a way that directly access hwrnd you
>> expose hwrnd to a userspace unconditionally. Why is this a good idea? 
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you.
> 
> The hwrng is accessible by host userspace via /dev/mem.

A guest should live on the same permission level as a user space application. If you run QEMU as UID 1000 without access to /dev/mem, why should the guest suddenly be able to directly access a memory location (MMIO) it couldn't access directly through a normal user space interface.

It's basically a layering violation.


Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/