Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH RFC 3/3] rng: leak detection support

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 12:38:28PM +0100, Babis Chalios wrote:
> 
> On 2/11/23 12:20, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 08:16:11PM +0200, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 27/9/23 23:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:43:20PM +0200, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > > > On 22/9/23 18:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 05:40:50PM +0200, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > > > > > On 22/9/23 17:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 12:11:37PM +0200, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 19/9/23 12:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:32:08AM +0200, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Resending to fix e-mail formatting issues (sorry for the spam)
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On 18/9/23 18:30, Babis Chalios wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's what the driver does now in the RFC patch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, this just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decreases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the race window, it doesn't eliminate it. If a third
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leak event happens it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > find any buffers to use:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. available buffers to queue 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. available buffers to queue X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. poll queue X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. used buffers in queue X       <- leak event 1 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use buffers in X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. avail buffers in queue X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. poll queue 1-X                <- leak event 2 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use buffers in 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. used buffers in queue 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8. avail buffers in queue 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >                                         <- leak event 3 (it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs buffers in X, race with step 5)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9. goto 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't get it. we added buffers in step 5.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What if the leak event 3 arrives before step 5 had time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually add the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > buffers in X and make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them visible to the device?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then it will see a single event in 1-X instead of two events.  A leak is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a leak though, I don't see does it matter how many triggered.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > So the scenario I have in mind is the following:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > (Epoch here is terminology that I used in the Linux RFC. It is a value
> > > > > > > > > > > maintained by random.c
> > > > > > > > > > > that changes every time a leak event happens).
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. add buffers to 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. add buffers to X
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. poll queue X
> > > > > > > > > > > 4. vcpu 0: get getrandom() entropy and cache epoch value
> > > > > > > > > > > 5. Device: First snapshot, uses buffers in X
> > > > > > > > > > > 6. vcpu 1: sees used buffers
> > > > > > > > > > > 7. Device: Second snapshot, uses buffers in 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > > 8. vcpu 0: getrandom() observes new  epoch value & caches it
> > > > > > > > > > > 9. Device: Third snapshot, no buffers in either queue, (vcpu 1 from step 6
> > > > > > > > > > > has not yet finished adding new buffers).
> > > > > > > > > > > 10. vcpu 1 adds new buffer in X
> > > > > > > > > > > 11. vcpu 0: getrandom() will not see new epoch and gets stale entropy.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > In this succession of events, when the third snapshot will happen, the
> > > > > > > > > > > device won't find
> > > > > > > > > > > any buffers in either queue, so it won't increase the RNG epoch value. So,
> > > > > > > > > > > any entropy
> > > > > > > > > > > gathered after step 8 will be the same across all snapshots. Am I missing
> > > > > > > > > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > Babis
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Yes but notice how this is followed by:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 12. vcpu 1: sees used buffers in 1-X
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Driver can notify getrandom I guess?
> > > > > > > > > It could, but then we have the exact race condition that VMGENID had,
> > > > > > > > > userspace has already consumed stale entropy and there's nothing we
> > > > > > > > > can do about that.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Although this is indeed a corner case, it feels like it beats the purpose
> > > > > > > > > of having the hardware update directly userspace (via copy on leak).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > How do you feel about the proposal a couple of emails back? It looks to
> > > > > > > > > me that it avoids completely the race condition.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Babis
> > > > > > > > It does. The problem of course is that this means that e.g.
> > > > > > > > taking a snapshot of a guest that is stuck won't work well.
> > > > > > > That is true, but does it matter? The intention of the proposal
> > > > > > > is that if it is not safe to take snapshots (i.e. no buffers in the
> > > > > > > queue) don't take snapshots.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I have been thinking of adding MAP/UNMAP descriptors for
> > > > > > > > a while now. Thus it will be possible to modify
> > > > > > > > userspace memory without consuming buffers.
> > > > > > > > Would something like this solve the problem?
> > > > > > > I am not familiar with MAP/UNMAP descriptors. Is there
> > > > > > > a link where I can read about them?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Babis
> > > > > > Heh no I just came up with the name. Will write up in a couple
> > > > > > of days, but the idea is that driver does get_user_pages,
> > > > > > adds buffer to queue, and device will remember the address
> > > > > > and change that memory on a snapshot. If there are buffers
> > > > > > in the queue it will also use these to tell driver,
> > > > > > but if there are no buffers then it won't.
> > > > > That sounds like a nice mechanism. However in our case the page
> > > > > holding the counter that gets increased by the hardware is a kernel
> > > > > page.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The reason for that is that things other than us (virtio-rng) might
> > > > > want to notify for leak events. For example, I think that Jason
> > > > > intended to use this mechanism to periodically notify user-space
> > > > > PRNGs that they need to reseed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Babis
> > > > Now I'm lost.
> > > > when you write, e.g.:
> > > > 4. vcpu 0: get getrandom() entropy and cache epoch value
> > > > how does vcpu access the epoch?
> > > The kernel provides a user space API to map a pointer to the epoch
> > > value. User space then caches its value and checks it every time it
> > > needs to make sure that no entropy leak has happened before using
> > > cached kernel entropy.
> > > 
> > > virtio-rng driver adds a copy on leak command to the queue for
> > > increasing this value (that's what we are speaking about in this thread).
> > > But other systems might want to report "leaks", such as random.c
> > > itself.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Babis
> > 
> > This idea would be fine but I don't see how it's so different
> > from VMGENID. Care to explain?
> > 
> It is different in that the memory is owned by the guest kernel, not
> the hardware. In this case, random.c maintains it. This allows, systems
> other than the hardware, e.g. virtio-rng to notify about entropy leak
> events. For example, random.c itself can periodically do that (I think
> Jason had that use-case in mind).

No sure I understand. Example?

> 
> The fact that we as well mmap that memory to the user-space is just
> for giving user space a mechanism that allows it to know when it needs
> to reseed its PRNGs. We _could_ have done the same with VMGENID,
> but the fact that, in this case, the underlying physical memory is owned
> by the ACPI device blocks us from letting other systems sending
> notifications
> as well.
> 
> Maybe it makes sense to have this discussion in the patch we sent for
> Linux on LKML [1]?
> 
> Cheers,
> Babis
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230823090107.65749-3-bchalios@amazon.es/T/#mb1242999d8296169d9a4ee1a0805005633ec146a