Re: [PATCH] drivers/virt: vmgenid: add vm generation id driver

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 08:55:34AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> My suggestion is to use a counter *in the UAPI*, not in the hypervisor
> protocol. (And as long as that counter can only miss increments in a
> cryptographically negligible fraction of cases, everything's fine.)

OK I got it now and I agree.

> > If what is sought is pure
> > randomness (in the sense that it's unpredictable, which I don't think
> > is needed here), then randoms are better.
> 
> And this is what *the hypervisor protocol* gives us (which could be
> very useful for reseeding the kernel RNG).

As an external source, yes very likely, as long as it's not trivially
observable by everyone under the same hypervisor :-)

> > Now the initial needs in the forwarded message are not entirely clear
> > to me but I wanted to rule out the apparent mismatch between the expressed
> > needs for uniqueness and the proposed solutions solely based on randomness.
> 
> Sure, from a theoretical standpoint, it would be a little bit nicer if
> the hypervisor protocol included a generation number along with the
> 128-bit random value. But AFAIU it doesn't, so if we want this to just
> work under Microsoft's existing hypervisor, we'll have to make do with
> checking whether the random value changed. :P

OK got it, thanks for the explanation!

Willy