Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-50045-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <ad1a131a006bf98a506e767a01f5022358b3e291.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/random: Retry on RDSEED failure
From: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: jejb@linux.ibm.com
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner
	 <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov
	 <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org"
	 <x86@kernel.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
	 <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun"
	 <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "Kalra, 
	Ashish" <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev"
	 <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2024 16:47:11 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9oqM2a766dBK22-yKr8=2-icg=UkQzmBOF8G5Zh_Y9E9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CAHmME9rum4uwSNFd_GkD9p_+vN4DBxA=feZX7k9RvugFZsZNJg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DM8PR11MB5750797D0B9B8EB32740F55DE77D2@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	 <CAHmME9oC=GE-7QS2m9FA5cs_ss+tQgB9Pj3tKnTtMMFpQmUshg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <DM8PR11MB5750B861F7A105886AA5FCE4E77C2@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	 <CAHmME9oJvbZgT4yT9Vydc2ZQVSo3Ea65G5aVK7gFxphkV00BnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20240131140756.GB2356784@mit.edu> <Zbpc8tppxuKr-hnN@zx2c4.com>
	 <20240131171042.GA2371371@mit.edu>
	 <DM8PR11MB5750C7D16DC566CD1329D5A5E77C2@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	 <CAHmME9q-eUXnXnpaDu0VOQemOYysst7SaJ-=b8-vCFP9h50Szg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20240201045710.GD2356784@mit.edu>
	 <CAHmME9oqM2a766dBK22-yKr8=2-icg=UkQzmBOF8G5Zh_Y9E9w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2024-02-01 at 19:09 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
[...]
> Anyway, that's about where I'm at. I figure I'll wait to see if the
> internal inquiry within Intel yields anything interesting, and then
> maybe we can move forward with solutions (B) or (F) or (G) or a
> different Roald Dahl novel instead.

It's a lot to quote, so I cut it, but all of your solutions assume a
rdseed/rdrand failure equates to a system one but it really doesn't: in
most systems there are other entropy sources.  In confidential
computing it is an issue because we have no other trusted sources.  The
problem with picking on rdseed/rdrand is that there are bound to be
older CPUs somewhere that have rng generation bugs that this will
expose.    How about making the failure contingent on the entropy pool
not having any entropy when the first random number is requested?  That
way systems with more than one usable entropy source won't flag a bug,
but it will still flag up confidential computing systems where there's
a malicious entropy depleter.

James