linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Mark TSC reliable

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]

Message-ID: <20230809061348.vhm5ie4uzystwfya@box.shutemov.name>
Date:   Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:13:48 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
Cc:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tdx: Mark TSC reliable

On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 05:44:37AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > 
> > I don't know what the rules here. As far as I can see, all other clock
> > sources relevant for TDX guest have lower rating. I guess we are fine?
> 
> What about acpi_pm? 
> See this:
> https://github.com/intel/tdx/commit/045692772ab4ef75062a83cc6e4ffa22cab40226

clocksource_acpi_pm.rating is 200 while TSC is 300.

> > There's notable exception to the rating order is kvmclock which is higher
> > than tsc. It has to be disabled, but it is not clear to me how. This topic
> > is related to how we are going to filter allowed devices/drivers, so I
> > would postpone the decision until we settle on wider filtering schema.
> 
> One option is to include "no-kvmclock" into kernel command line, which
> is attested. Another option is to try to disable it explicitly, like we had
> in past: 
> https://github.com/intel/tdx/commit/6b0357f2115c1bdd158c0c8836f4f541517bf375
> 
> The obvious issues with command line is that it is going to 1) grow 
> considerably if we try to disable everything we can via command line
> and 2) there is a high chance that in practice people will not use secure default
> and/or forget to verify the correct status of cmd line. But this is to be
> expected I guess for any security method that involves attestation unfortunately.

I guess command line is fine, until we have coherent solution on
filtering.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov