From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30B6C31E4A for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC3F1217F4 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="XElxIcOX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727040AbfFMRn0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:43:26 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]:34899 "EHLO mail-ed1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725616AbfFMRn0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jun 2019 13:43:26 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id p26so28346415edr.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:43:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KbVzXUK1NN9/sw3hoYhD1GHtUrylzXfXjiAM/J+Brog=; b=XElxIcOXlFiOTxVzejT8v77VQGmn+wziJUEUa7uBdTmVPB3GQlqrq/i+WZ+W0yfxMJ AGWTCUBjBFVbjgKFTlcQbGcOsdU6UlVBEIbkhv2PqCPR0QTVNlQH3HGOWsft/lF9avoJ yVjk3wpVIuCOyimIPxq8XjoUi73mZirgNIWY4GkTsEiN98x+RF+PCqlqPZts5nG+ZY0Z Lidzym2SV0+4oYyVAGoEBGYstsP1m/t55omoaXEsvzTQx8WJN3mGHuWytvioC4Ht008N vPv9yQ4yP4re4lDf999mFYZKd8UbkkzdBZGvJsm59K4MByM2HkTud5FoYxkBWog03a8/ H3yQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KbVzXUK1NN9/sw3hoYhD1GHtUrylzXfXjiAM/J+Brog=; b=HsHxCzR93AbjgEawcwNaSRfDmIT0I8y9/J+/v2/wvGcERfwbWWoodhlMJoFtJrRBOl 4JRuxgeXunjtoWLzWwkxbj9Y5BbfRb6gkMbatAKMYw9BE3iXDEAzGPKWqBpEIpTFJBmw iHupfWVKYeDCc6aam/TGCMPQfZCdvjCjFJYqusIt3WyXvs1TvH52QxzfAAU4liNh3X0E iHedQtYP7CEYIPrE7UQV2icVOFggidWrnjL+FoWTZtFrX7xU/oSejHt85hzroCQJoHmL lui97L5X/nmxNH0Yy5R4Gz0T7ecWnhjmHWI2CZrrmqNzGIT2RR+EyTl7ajRDgVu0qZ+c VDFg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXfl38qtB/+ZvTqbW+zBw6/EfaMm+be+PVI0R0jQriivTFG2Gj7 cYZTfx/f4ZJkDJBqt8t0tYMmKcH5HQ51322O3xwa6w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyRkSAfTZEud2sjuEwtrMVjDlLXDnzhlBc4qjCpsFxZK+M8/SJe5pp8MJlhR6sctwLybD1Hs3XKTXr+1omkhdU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9705:: with SMTP id k5mr43469018ejx.5.1560447803686; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:43:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5CEC9667.30100@intel.com> <5CEE3AC4.3020904@intel.com> <5CF07D37.9090805@intel.com> <5CF2599B.3030001@intel.com> <5CF5F6AE.90706@intel.com> <5CF8C272.7050808@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <5CF8C272.7050808@intel.com> From: Eric Hankland Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 10:43:12 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: x86: PMU Whitelist To: Wei Wang Cc: Cfir Cohen , Paolo Bonzini , rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Stephane Eranian Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Since we aren't using QEMU, I don't have those patches ready yet, but I can work on them if you want to review them at the same time as this patch. The architectural events (minus the LLC events) are probably a reasonable starting point for the whitelist. Eric On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 12:31 AM Wei Wang wrote: > > 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