Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5CF8C272.7050808@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 06 Jun 2019 15:36:18 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     Eric Hankland <ehankland@google.com>
CC:     Cfir Cohen <cfir@google.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: PMU Whitelist
References: <CAOyeoRWfPNmaWY6Lifdkdj3KPPM654vzDO+s3oduEMCJP+Asow@mail.gmail.com> <5CEC9667.30100@intel.com> <CAOyeoRWhfyuuYdguE6Wrzd7GOdow9qRE4MZ4OKkMc5cdhDT53g@mail.gmail.com> <5CEE3AC4.3020904@intel.com> <CAOyeoRW85jV=TW_xwSj0ZYwPj_L+G9wu+QPGEF3nBmPbWGX4_g@mail.gmail.com> <5CF07D37.9090805@intel.com> <CAOyeoRXWQaVYZSVL_LTTdAwJOEr+eCzhp1=_JcOX3i6_CJiD_g@mail.gmail.com> <5CF2599B.3030001@intel.com> <CAOyeoRWuHyhoy6NB=O+ekQMhBFngozKoanWzArxgBk4DH2hdtg@mail.gmail.com> <5CF5F6AE.90706@intel.com> <CAOyeoRW5wx0F=9B24h29KkhUrbaORXVSoJufb4d-XzKiAsz+NQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEU=KTHsVmrAHXUKdHu_OwcrZoy-hgV7pk4UymtchGE5bGdUGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOyeoRXFAQNNWRiHNtK3n17V0owBVNyKdv75xjt08Q_pC+XOXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOyeoRXFAQNNWRiHNtK3n17V0owBVNyKdv75xjt08Q_pC+XOXg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/06/2019 05:35 AM, Eric Hankland wrote:
>>> Right - I'm aware there are other ways of detecting this - it's still
>>> a class of events that some people don't want to surface. I'll ask if
>>> there are any better examples.
> I asked and it sounds like we are treating all events as potentially
> insecure until they've been reviewed. If Intel were to publish
> official (reasonably substantiated) guidance stating that the PMU is
> secure, then I think we'd be happy without such a safeguard in place,
> but short of that I think we want to err on the side of caution.
>

I'm not aware of any vendors who'd published statements like that.

Anyway, are you ready to share your QEMU patches or the events you want 
to be on the whitelists?


Best,
Wei