[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXMAWSC6B-irn4LeXFzB2tODqagsBboky=xnGv5ZTh-sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:02:49 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: random: Providing a seed value to VM guests
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2014 11:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> A CPUID leaf or an MSR advertised by a CPUID leaf has another
>> advantage: it's easy to use in the ASLR code -- I don't think there's
>> a real IDT, so there's nothing like rdmsr_safe available. It also
>> avoids doing anything complicated with the boot process to allow the
>> same seed to be used for ASLR and random.c; it can just be invoked
>> twice on boot.
>>
>
> At that point we are talking an x86-specific interface, and so we might
> as well simply emulate RDRAND (urandom) and RDSEED (random) if the CPU
> doesn't support them. I believe KVM already has a way to report CPUID
> features that are "emulated but supported anyway", i.e. they work but
> are slow.
Do existing kernels and userspace respect this? If the normal bit for
RDRAND is unset, then we might be okay, but, if not, then I think this
may kill guest performance.
Is RDSEED really reasonable here? Won't it slow down by several
orders of magnitude?
>
>> What's the right forum for this? This thread is probably not it.
>
> Change the subject line?
:)
>
> -hpa
>
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists