qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Kevin Wolf" <kwolf@redhat.com>,
	"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	"Prasad J Pandit" <pjp@fedoraproject.org>,
	"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"Christian Schoenebeck" <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>,
	"Michael Roth" <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"P J P" <ppandit@redhat.com>, "Greg Kurz" <groug@kaod.org>,
	"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] MAINTAINERS: introduce cve or security quotient field
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:02:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200714064921-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_ca4JN655GW=eGyjrjDmiv0EktaZZ7RMghO5rBwm9tGQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:22:28AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 11:12, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > And for people who want to build QEMU with lots of functionality (like
> > Fedora does), I think a -security flag would be a useful addition.
> > We can then tell security researchers "only a high security issue
> > if it reproduces with -security=high, only a security issue
> > if it reproduces with -security=low".
> 
> I think a -security option would also be useful to users -- it
> makes it easier for them to check "is this configuration using
> something that I didn't realize was not intended to be secure".
> For me, something useful for our users is much more compelling
> than "this might make security researchers' lives a bit easier".
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM

True. And I guess downstreams can also force the option to high or set the
default to high rather easily if they want to.

So the option would be:

-security level
	Set minimal required security level of QEMU.

	high: block use of QEMU functionality which is intended to be secure against
		malicious guests.
	low: allow use of all QEMU functionality, best effort security
		against malicious guests.

Default would be -security low.

Does this look reasonable?

Just a correction to what I wrote: I no longer think it's reasonable to
classify the severity of a security issue automatically. E.g. a qemu
crash in virtio code is a high severity security issue if it triggers
with platform_iommu=on since it is then driver from guest userspace, and
low severity one without since then it's driven from a guest driver.

So I think we can add something like this to security.rst and to
the wiki:

	only a security issue if it
	reproduces with -security high, a regular bug if it only reproduces with
	-security low

Prasad?

-- 
MST



  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-14 11:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-14  8:36 [PATCH 0/1] MAINTAINERS: add security quotient field P J P
2020-07-14  8:36 ` [PATCH 1/1] MAINTAINERS: introduce cve or " P J P
2020-07-14  9:42   ` Peter Maydell
2020-07-14  9:52     ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-14 10:12       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2020-07-14 10:22         ` Peter Maydell
2020-07-14 11:02           ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2020-07-14 13:10             ` P J P
2020-07-16  6:55               ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-16  8:36                 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-16  9:21                   ` P J P
2020-07-16  9:39                     ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-16  9:45                     ` Christian Schoenebeck
2020-07-16 10:01                       ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-16 12:22                         ` Christian Schoenebeck
2020-07-16 12:54                           ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-14 13:30             ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-14 13:48               ` Kevin Wolf
2020-07-14 13:56                 ` Thomas Huth
2020-07-14 15:04                   ` Christian Schoenebeck
2020-07-14 14:02                 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-14 10:18   ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2020-07-14 11:51   ` Cornelia Huck
2020-07-16  8:56   ` Dr. David Alan Gilbert
2020-07-16  9:44     ` P J P
2020-07-16 10:09       ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2020-07-16 10:43         ` Markus Armbruster
2020-07-14  9:46 ` [PATCH 0/1] MAINTAINERS: add " Michael S. Tsirkin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200714064921-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=groug@kaod.org \
    --cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
    --cc=mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=pjp@fedoraproject.org \
    --cc=ppandit@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu_oss@crudebyte.com \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).