linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: PMU Whitelist

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOyeoRXFAQNNWRiHNtK3n17V0owBVNyKdv75xjt08Q_pC+XOXg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 14:35:37 -0700
From:   Eric Hankland <ehankland@...gle.com>
To:     Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
Cc:     Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: PMU Whitelist

>> Right - I'm aware there are other ways of detecting this - it's still
>> a class of events that some people don't want to surface. I'll ask if
>> there are any better examples.

I asked and it sounds like we are treating all events as potentially
insecure until they've been reviewed. If Intel were to publish
official (reasonably substantiated) guidance stating that the PMU is
secure, then I think we'd be happy without such a safeguard in place,
but short of that I think we want to err on the side of caution.

Eric