linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/random: Retry on RDSEED failure

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 21:04:34 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, 
	Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>, 
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>, "Kalra, Ashish" <ashish.kalra@....com>, 
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, 
	"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/random: Retry on RDSEED failure

Hi Tom,

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:46 PM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote:
> Don't forget that Linux will run on older hardware as well, so the 10
> retries might be valid for that. Or do you intend this change purely for CVMs?

Oh, grr, darnit. That is indeed a very important detail. I meant this
for generic code, so yea, if it's actually just Zen3+, then this won't
fly.

AMD people, Intel people: what are the fullest statements we can rely
on here? Do the following two statements work?

1) On newer chips, RDRAND never fails.
2) On older chips, RDRAND never fails if you try 10 times in a loop,
unless you consider host->guest attacks, which we're not, because CoCo
is only a thing on the newer chips.

If those hold true, then the course of action would be to just add a
WARN_ON(!ok) but keep the loop as-is.

(Anyway, I posted
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240214195744.8332-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/
just before seeing this message.)

Jason