From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
Subject: Re: early x86 unseeded randomness
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 12:47:36 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151001290.1886@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170815074254.6byayhspc5tdtjb5@gmail.com>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
> > Nowadays we could use similar methods using RDTSC providing more accurate
> > counting. This doesn't provide a lot of entropy of course, given that a
> > 2 GHz machine will at most count 31 bits there. But I tend to think that
> > what matters during early boot is to transform something highly predictable
> > into something unlikely to be predicted (ie: an exploit having to scan 2^31
> > possible addresses will not be really usable). It's also possible to do the
> > same with the PIT0 counter ticking at 18.2 Hz without any correlation with
> > the RTC by the way, and roughly provide 25 more bits. And if you expect
> > that the BIOS has emitted a 800 Hz beep at boot, you could still have a
> > divider of 1491 in PIT2 providing 10 more bits, though with a bit of
> > correlation with PIT0 since they use the same 1.19 MHz source. These
> > methods increase the boot time by up to one second though, but my point
> > here is that when you have nothing it's always a bit better.
>
> One other thing besides trying to extract entropy via timing would be to utilize
> more of the machine's environment in seeding the random number generator.
>
> For example on x86 the E820 table is available very early on and its addresses
> could be mixed into the random pool. An external attacker often would not know the
> precise hardware configuration.
>
> Likewise the boot parameters string could be mixed into the initial random pool as
> well - and this way distributions could create per installation seed simply by
> appending a random number to the boot string.
>
> Both methods should be very fast and robust.
Actually using RDTSC is not the worst approach. See:
https://lwn.net/images/conf/rtlws11/random-hardware.pdf
Below is a stupid implementation of that. Here are the resulting numbers
from a dozen of boot cycles:
10a3e7af4890c0ae
e7b08c8c18e6d5d9
951e12c77f79e000
ad88753ad11c9b80
db2d4dce466a3da4
b328c76d4e67368d
642edf2265e0c8a7
ef45a9f9326249d0
13e01119498797a6
0a537c8751e0349e
eb67c02dc09326dd
037d4b332020538d
793fbfda06718c69
2231535c514769e5
This mechanism could also be used to seed the random generator.
Thanks,
tglx
8<-------------------
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -1360,3 +1360,19 @@ unsigned long calibrate_delay_is_known(v
return 0;
}
#endif
+
+u64 __init tsc_early_random(void)
+{
+ u64 uninitialized_var(res);
+ int i;
+
+ if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC))
+ return res;
+
+ res ^= rdtsc();
+ for (i = 0; i < BITS_PER_LONG; i++) {
+ res ^= ((rdtsc() & 0x04) >> 2) << i;
+ udelay(2);
+ }
+ return res;
+}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-15 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-14 17:35 Borislav Petkov
2017-08-14 17:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-14 18:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-14 18:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-08-14 19:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-15 1:31 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-15 6:44 ` Willy Tarreau
2017-08-15 7:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-08-15 8:01 ` Willy Tarreau
2017-08-15 8:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-08-15 12:09 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-15 13:26 ` Willy Tarreau
2017-08-15 10:47 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2017-08-15 13:45 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-15 13:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-08-15 14:25 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-15 14:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-08-15 15:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-15 17:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-08-16 3:35 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-16 9:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-08-16 9:56 ` Will Deacon
2017-08-16 3:21 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-08-15 15:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-15 12:48 ` Michael Ellerman
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1708151001290.1886@nanos \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=der.herr@hofr.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®