El lun, 13 nov 2023 a las 9:39, Demi Marie Obenour (<demioben...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> On 11/13/23 02:50, Hugo V.C. wrote: > > - Are you sure it is affordable? > > *** Yes. Creating laptops/servers with independent computing platforms is > > like putting toghether different laptps/servers inside the same box. Few > > things in life are so simple.... and simple usually means that it will be > > affordable or will tend to be affordable (same happened with multi core > > computing and this is by far a more complex manufacturing problem) > > > > - Can that formally verified software run on desktop-class hardware that > I > > can > > buy, either now or in the foreseeable future? > > *** Yes. seL4 is an example. Here the debate is to define what amount of > > software you want to be verified. To me, an hypervisor/OS like seL4 is > more > > than enough and then, on top of this you need to build other layers of > > non-verified software. You will always have unverified software on a > > Desktop, what is important is to have the verified one on critical parts > of > > the solution. What do you need to believe seL4 can run on a laptop? Do > you > > need to see it booting up and running a VM with a standard OS inside? > > Yes, and with the same speculation protections Xen provides. > > > (remember that this is basically what QubesOS, which I use right now, is > > doing all the time...). > > I’m one of the developers of Qubes OS, though I am speaking in a personal > capacity here. > **** I know since long ago...! And that's why I think your contribution here is so valuable, you are right now a bridge between the academic (seL4) and the real World of Secure Desktop Computing (QubesOS). I've been working with hardened solutions (Grsecurity, Pitbull, etc) since 20 years ago trying to solve the "Desktop problem" and never get a viable solution. Then the virtualization started being more affordable/usable on Desktop systems... and then I knew about QubesOS... and here I saw a big opportunity to join efforts of both solutions. I firmly believe in that. And you are a key piece here, I have not seen anyone else from QubesOS being interested on seL4, but you. So yes, I know who you are and it is very nice you are here debating stuff about seL4 desktop implementation, as this is a path to follow IMHO :-) > > > The difference is QubesOS do not rely on a verified > > hypervisor while the hypothetical system I'm talking about it will have > > seL4 booting, which is a verified piece of code. > > I would love that, but seL4 currently is missing at least five critical > security features on x86: > > 1. Interrupt remapping in the IOMMU. > 2. Protection against speculative execution attacks the moment the > embargo breaks. > 3. The ability to either choose the appropriate mitigations itself, > or to let userspace choose them. > 4. Properly implemented speculative execution mitigations. > 5. Microcode update support. > > Without all five of these, seL4 is _less_ secure than Xen, which > defeats the entire purpose of using it. As per the discussion in > https://github.com/seL4/seL4/issues/1108 this will not be fixed any > time soon. > *** Wow... this would open a entire new debate out of the scope of this thread which I think it is no worth as I don't want one or the other to be better, but joining efforts to get a superb product that will make the security industry change forever. > > That’s why I asked about desktop-class hardware I can actually buy: > the only non-x86 desktop-class hardware I know of are Macs with Apple > silicon and POWER9 machines from Raptor, and seL4 supports neither. > Apple silicon has lots of nonstandard IOMMUs that seL4 would need to > support, and POWER is not supported at all. > > > Having said that, you can > > et we will have more and more pieces of verified (or semi-formally > > verified) software that we will put together like a puzzle to build a > more > > reliable solution. An example is TCP/IP stack, which is a key piece of > > software I will always encourage people to verify as it will benefit all > > the Internet, not only Desktops.... but yes, the response is yes, in a > > foreseeable future we will have such verified software running on > > desktop-class hardware and the current debate will be part of the > Internet > > History. > > That would be amazing. (Fun fact: you probably have some formally > verified cryptographic code installed on your system _right now_, since > NSS uses fiat-crypto for some of its cryptographic primitives last > I checked.) > > > - Does it have a VMM that can run multi-core Linux guests, and which > > can schedule those vCPUs across multiple physical CPUs? > > - Does it support low power states, so that battery life is decent? > > - Does it allow a privileged guest to create and destroy unprivileged > > guests? > > - Does it support PCI passthrough? If not, does it have drivers for > every > > single piece of hardware on the aforementioned desktop-class machine — > > including the GPU? > > *** Those can be answered better by seL4 experts, don't dare to give you > a > > wrong answers, > > anyway, you should understand there are steps in the process of migrating > > to seL4, do not expect a magical > > path with everything working like a charm from minute zero. But there's > lot > > of amazing talented people like you > > that, if working together, can help boosting the process (it will happen > > after or before). I bet my business and my career on it. > > My understanding is that Qubes OS would be happy to _use_ an seL4-based > VMM, provided that it met Qubes OS’s requirements and offered a > sufficiently compelling advantage over Xen. But Qubes OS simply > doesn’t have the resources to _implement_ one. Therefore, the > time to talk about integrating seL4 with Qubes OS would be _after_ > the features I mentioned are implemented in either the kernel or the > supporting userland. Xen provides all of them out of the box, with the > sole exception of S0ix ("modern standby"). > > To be clear: I don’t fault seL4 for focusing on embedded right now. > The reward/effort ratio is vastly more favorable there. Servers are > significantly harder and I suspect desktops and laptops are the > worst-case scenario, because _everything_ is dynamic and subject to > the whim of a human who can and will break any simplifying assumptions > one has made. And this is even before one starts talking about GPUs > and other accelerators, which are a huge attack surface and yet can > be the difference between a system being usable and unusable for the > tasks people expect of it. There is a reason Qubes OS is going to be > supporting GPU acceleration at some point. > > That’s why I am so pessimistic about time protection on desktop: > all of the stuff I have read about it assumes at least some static > partitioning, and in the desktop world, static _anything_ simply > doesn’t exist. > > > - Does it protect against speculative execution attacks _without_ > requiring > > static partitioning of _any_ resource? Even with a work-conserving > > scheduler? > > *** Those can be answered better by seL4 experts, don't dare to give you > a > > wrong answers, but I think the question is tricky in the way you made > it... > > > > - Does it support reassigning memory from VMs that have lots of spare > memory > > to VMs that are short on memory? > > *** Those can be answered better by seL4 experts, don't dare to give you > a > > wrong answers, anyway, > > I guess you are referring to the infamous 🙏 (don't want to offend) > > "memory balancer" of QubesOS that locks you out and forbids you to start > > news guests when no more memory is available (even if lot of free memory > is > > available on all guests). > > No offense taken :). The memory balancer certainly leaves lots to be > desired. > > > > If this kind of "reassigning" memory > > is what you need, I bet this is already viable with seL4, anyway better > > response will be given by seL4 experts > > > > El lun, 13 nov 2023 a las 2:42, Demi Marie Obenour (< > demioben...@gmail.com>) > > escribió: > > > >> On 11/12/23 03:57, Hugo V.C. wrote: > >>> "However, ensuring that the CPU time used by one domain is not > observable > >>> by another domain is not possible, and I do not believe this will ever > >>> change." > >>> > >>> I usually see infosec people talking about CPU time and cache to cover > >>> "modern" hardware based attacks, which is a good starting point, but > >> just a > >>> starting point. > >>> Share a beer with anyone with know-how on physics and will give you > half > >>> dozen ways to attack a workload from another workload in a system that > is > >>> sharing resources. And I'm not talking about covert channels, which are > >> the > >>> last unicorns to protect, I talk about direct info leaks based on > several > >>> measurable environmental variables of the medium were those workload > are > >>> being executed. Even with air gaped systems... so sharing hardware you > >> can > >>> figure it out... > >>> > >>> I guess I should release some paper about Marvel CPUs (ARM) and how to > >> play > >>> with those naive hardware partitioning concepts we all are blindly > >> trusting. > >>> > >>> One thing I absolutely agree with Gernot s to simplyfy hardware as much > >> as > >>> possible and let the (formally verified) software do it's job when it > >> comes > >>> to Time Protection. Even if far from perfect, this is an affordable and > >>> realistic approach. For any other hardware-based solution where the > words > >>> "share/sharing" are wrote down somewhere, I would not even read the > >> specs. > >> > >> - Are you sure it is affordable? > >> - Can that formally verified software run on desktop-class hardware > that I > >> can > >> buy, either now or in the foreseeable future? > >> - Does it have a VMM that can run multi-core Linux guests, and which > >> can schedule those vCPUs across multiple physical CPUs? > >> - Does it support low power states, so that battery life is decent? > >> - Does it allow a privileged guest to create and destroy unprivileged > >> guests? > >> - Does it support PCI passthrough? If not, does it have drivers for > every > >> single piece of hardware on the aforementioned desktop-class machine — > >> including the GPU? > >> - Does it protect against speculative execution attacks _without_ > requiring > >> static partitioning of _any_ resource? Even with a work-conserving > >> scheduler? > >> - Does it support reassigning memory from VMs that have lots of spare > >> memory > >> to VMs that are short on memory? > >> > >> If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, then it is not > realistic > >> in > >> my world.-- > Sincerely, > Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@sel4.systems To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@sel4.systems
