Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] add paravirtualization hwrng support

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 10/30/2012 02:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Either you're not reading what I wrote, or you're confusing me with
> someone else.

My apologies, you are indeed correct.  I misinterpreted your emails,
probably because I got you confused with someone else.

> I *never* mentioned passing /dev/urandom, and in fact I explained to
> Anthony that it is wrong.  Please take a look at
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/178123
> 
> What I said that passing /dev/hwrng or rdrand would:
> 
> - not make /dev/random with virtio-rng-pci worse than without

It wouldn't, but it would make virtio-rng-pci a potential noop on a
system where it could genuinely do better.

> - make migration working
> 
> - avoiding denial of service for the host's /dev/random

However, it means that if there is an rngd-readable source on the host
(e.g. TPM, DRNG) then the guest cannot take advantage of it; if it
accesses /dev/random then it would be able to.  This is particularly
toxic if you turn off DRNG to the host in the name of migration; the
DRNG is a very high bandwidth source which is processed directly by rngd
since there is no point in doing a detour via /dev/hwrng in the kernel.
 As such, with your proposed version you would take one of the best
possible situations and turn it into the worst possible situation.

Furthermore, you are in many ways still causing a DoS on the host, since
you are eating up entropy that would otherwise be fed into /dev/random.
 So there are cases where the situation is much worse with /dev/hwrng
than with /dev/random.

	-hpa