[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211020022529-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 02:56:27 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"kaplan, david" <david.kaplan@....com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Hetzelt, Felicitas" <f.hetzelt@...berlin.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 06/12] virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 09:33:49AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > In my own opinion, the threat model is:
> >
> > Attacker: 'malicious' hypervisor
> >
> > Victim: VM with SEV/TDX/SGX
> >
> > The attacker should not be able to steal secure/private data from VM, when the
> > hypervisor's action is unexpected. DoS is out of the scope.
> >
> > My concern is: it is very hard to clearly explain in the patchset how the
> > hypervisor is able to steal VM's data, by setting queue=0 or injecting unwanted
> > interrupts to VM.
>
> Yes, it's a hard question but instead of trying to answer that, we can
> just fix the case of e.g unexpected interrupts.
>
> Thanks
I think this it's still early days for TDX. So it's a bit early to talk
about threat models, start opening CVEs and distinguishing between
security and non-security bugs.
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists