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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALCETrX4MVbkmMejQ6O_-Wt_uKDfR1K=XGnb3_59w-hmzV++iA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:32:47 -0700 From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] random,x86,kvm: Add and use MSR_KVM_GET_RNG_SEED On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:20 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > On 07/16/2014 09:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:13:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> On 07/16/2014 09:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>> Il 16/07/2014 18:03, H. Peter Anvin ha scritto: >>>>> I suggested emulating RDRAND *but not set the CPUID bit*. We already >>>>> developed a protocol in KVM/Qemu to enumerate emulated features (created >>>>> for MOVBE as I recall), specifically to service the semantic "feature X >>>>> will work but will be substantially slower than normal." >>>> >>>> But those will set the CPUID bit. There is currently no way for KVM >>>> guests to know if a CPUID bit is real or emulated. >>>> >>> >>> OK, so there wasn't any protocol implemented in the end. I sit corrected. >>> >> That protocol that was implemented is between qemu and kvm, not kvm and a guest. >> > > Either which way, the notion was to have a PV CPUID bit like the > proposed kvm_get_rng_seed bit, but to have it exercised by executing RDRAND. > > The biggest reason to *not* do this would be that with an MSR it is not > available to guest user space, which may be better under the circumstances. On the theory that I see no legitimate reason to expose this to guest user space, I think we shouldn't expose it. If we wanted to add a get_random_bytes syscall, that would be an entirely different story, though. Should I send v3 as one series or should I split it into host and guest parts? --Andy -- 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