Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing
Jason Wang <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | com.openwall.lists.kernel-hardening,dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
在 2023/2/1 19:01, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin Dupont de Dinechin wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jan 2023, at 18:39, Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: >>>> Finally, security considerations that apply irrespective of whether the >>>> platform is confidential or not are also outside of the scope of this >>>> document. This includes topics ranging from timing attacks to social >>>> engineering. >>> Why are timing attacks by hypervisor on the guest out of scope? >> Good point. >> >> I was thinking that mitigation against timing attacks is the same >> irrespective of the source of the attack. However, because the HV >> controls CPU time allocation, there are presumably attacks that >> are made much easier through the HV. Those should be listed. > Not just that, also because it can and does emulate some devices. > For example, are disk encryption systems protected against timing of > disk accesses? > This is why some people keep saying "forget about emulated devices, require > passthrough, include devices in the trust zone". One problem is that the device could be yet another emulated one that is running in the SmartNIC/DPU itself. Thanks