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 BEA5AC54E94 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232340AbjAZP4Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:56:25 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36246 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229459AbjAZP4Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:56:24 -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 769124FAF4 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 07:55:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674748541; 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=KUfz5FqW5DjFue06WiRhV7K91biiIYjl4iTlBUVfvFM=; b=itoZpfI6CAv3MX+5k4Up1GSDXfk958vgDtTXE0eCHreTtBeOIAgKh0o8aV66yNDUblq7cO hkIVViott+xKE9EPNs66efok7hqwepuNl4cA1Pi/eipAE0WVKg3HrO7k8LySulGRqc6T96 tzbbUaVB+kM32lCdcnYGE4f9PzjJX4s= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-208-QlWNrDv2PaGd9D8a0A1pJw-1; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 10:55:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: QlWNrDv2PaGd9D8a0A1pJw-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 91B4C3C10696; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.33.36.108]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62D16492C14; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:55:32 +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 04:13:11PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 3:58 PM Dr. David Alan Gilbert > wrote: > > > > * Richard Weinberger (richard.weinberger@gmail.com) 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. > > > > Are you aware of anything that you'd use instead? > > Well, I'd think towards iSCSI over TLS to protect the IO transport. That just moves the problem elsewhere though surely. The remote iSCSI server still has to persist the VMs' data, and the cloud sevice provider can observe any I/O before it hits the final hardware storage. So the remote iSCSI server needs to apply a FDE like encryption scheme for the exported iSCSI block device, and using a key only accessible to the tenant that owns the VM. It still needs to solve the same problem of having some kind of "generation ID" that can tweak the IV for each virtual disk sector, to protect against time based analysis. 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 :|