From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0524F606A321 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 19:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=hQ4q76Zq Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRa39-0001Oj-LZ; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:01:31 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRa37-0001Nl-CE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:01:29 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xRa35-0006CK-I4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:01:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1794510086; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=STA116RLuNmF5LalXZD/71OGeWLq5zQuvErudwf1cvk=; b=hQ4q76ZqlV4BVphrLszTCzh7hUlejXcYIe34d9LQ+1+GJRurIqyNMQ/fUTCwaft8WHSx8H NfjCN9Gv/r4XJbwGZTpV4LN0/c5ieeRYRP0ACFv9FwA3/V4blqSSfvVPyanPsMUCM9Yhgz ofqeQATxrvjjI3+7udogVwwB03uguXI= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-523-CfjgYlsLNtyuZCJNrPxJyQ-1; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 14:01:23 -0500 X-MC-Unique: CfjgYlsLNtyuZCJNrPxJyQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: CfjgYlsLNtyuZCJNrPxJyQ_1794510081 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 192A3195605B; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 19:01:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (headnet04.pony-001.prod.iad2.dc.redhat.com [10.2.32.116]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED43C1800495; Thu, 12 Nov 2026 19:01:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 19:01:15 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Marc-Andr=C3=A9?= Lureau , Thomas Huth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-riscv@nongnu.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/28] hw: mark all remaining virtio object types as secure Message-ID: References: <20261029131241.2275706-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20261029131241.2275706-5-berrange@redhat.com> X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.3 (2026-10-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 Alex, as the virtio-gpu* maintainer can you give your opinion on the discussion below about virtio-gpu security tagging vs our current security policy for "virtualization use case" to ack/nack the proposal. On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 05:33:31PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 06:52:27PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2026 at 6:40 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 06:35:29PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2026 at 3:53 PM Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 29/10/2026 14.12, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > These are all intended for use in a virtualization scenario and must > > > > > > provide a security boundary. > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Marc-André Lureau > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé > > > > > > --- > > > > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a second thought about this, I'd like to exclude all > > > > gpu-accelerated paths for now. virgl/mesa/rutabaga expose a very large > > > > attack surface, so I'd like to drop them from the secure boundary > > > > > > Rather than repost, please see my response for patch 2: > > > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2026-11/msg01530.html > > > > > > TL;DR: we have already promised anything virtio related is in scope > > > for security handling for a long time, as they are all unambiguously > > > "virtualization use case". > > > > > > > the value of a secure policy enforcement is low if we know those > > devices are unsecure and don't have the resources to make them secure. > > It isn't a great situation to be in, but we're already there for any > virtio devices based on our existing policies for bug handling and > security triage. We can't promise we'll get fixes for all CVEs quickly, > but we will at least assign CVEs so that users are aware when there > are known problems. > > This contrasts to other devices where problems will remain largely > hidden for view, as we treat them as normal bugs and never call our > security concerns when committing changes. > > With regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| > |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > > With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|