Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA0AC05027 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232081AbjAZPpF (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:45:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56758 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232060AbjAZPpB (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:45:01 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373216582 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 07:44:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674747855; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eJ4/GQma9+zbCCu9pThK5J0KGvWfthW+5weBFAXrv6o=; b=KtousNie1JF/fbgRs6dD9EeDyldco1XPZTZ5FS3Of0L0z4j7VB9vyTZcOI9LSWrNOBUbvj xa6DhBIa46Mj0oPTndohdyMF9yrTNwXQKy0DsVPvVlrZQ0x4F7e6Xnql112YpNCzvPiffU XjC8IlMxdg0ORaHtf/bbCTQi6kxr8mU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-386-9h0vtG_mPxOy44cxl0hckA-1; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:44:12 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9h0vtG_mPxOy44cxl0hckA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99096183B3DD; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.33.36.108]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD9F7492C14; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:43:59 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Richard Weinberger Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Reshetova, Elena" , "Shishkin, Alexander" , "Shutemov, Kirill" , "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" , "Kleen, Andi" , "Hansen, Dave" , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "Wunner, Lukas" , Mika Westerberg , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , "Poimboe, Josh" , "aarcange@redhat.com" , Cfir Cohen , Marc Orr , "jbachmann@google.com" , "pgonda@google.com" , "keescook@chromium.org" , James Morris , Michael Kelley , "Lange, Jon" , "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux guest kernel threat model for Confidential Computing Message-ID: Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.9 (2022-11-12) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 03:23:34PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 3:22 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Any virtual device exposed to the guest that can transfer potentially > > sensitive data needs to have some form of guest controlled encryption > > applied. For disks this is easy with FDE like LUKS, for NICs this is > > already best practice for services by using TLS. Other devices may not > > have good existing options for applying encryption. > > I disagree wrt. LUKS. The cryptography behind LUKS protects persistent data > but not transport. If an attacker can observe all IO you better > consult a cryptographer. > LUKS has no concept of session keys or such, so the same disk sector will > always get encrypted with the very same key/iv. Yes, you're right, all the FDE cipher modes are susceptible to time based analysis of I/O, so very far from ideal. You'll get protection for your historically written confidential data at the time a VM host is first compromised, but if (as) they retain long term access to the host, confidentiality is increasingly undermined the longer they can observe the ongoing I/O. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|