linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 3/6] xen/virtio: Add option to restrict memory access under Xen

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:41:09 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Oleksandr <olekstysh@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Julien Grall <julien@....org>,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 3/6] xen/virtio: Add option to restrict memory access
 under Xen

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:16:16AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Christoph suggested (rather firmly) this would be the way to go.

Yeah, I saw it but I don't think it is the right way to go.

What happens the next time a guest needs to query the platform
underneath? Misuse these interfaces again?

Because people will see the Xen use and say, hey, look, I will use this
for my funky HV too.

Even worse: what happens if Xen decides to implement SEV/TDX? Then
you're in for a world of fun.

Now, if we want to *extend* the interfaces to have something as generic
as, say, platform_has() and that should be the way for generic kernel
code running in the guest to query the platform capabilities, then sure,
by all means.

> This is needed on guest side at a rather hypervisor independent place.
> 
> So a capability of some sort seems appropriate.
> 
> Another suggestion of mine was to have a callback (or flag) in
> struct x86_hyper_runtime for that purpose.

This becomes an issue if the HV is not x86 - then you need a different
method of querying it, which then underneath will call the arch-specific
interface.

I don't know how much of querying guests need to do and how they've been
doing that so far. Depending on the requirements, we probably should
think about a clean design from the get-go instead of homegrown things.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette