Comment by lrvick

21 hours ago

> the formally-verified configuration of seL4 doesn't actually do much

As a systems security engineer myself I would disagree and know several others that would as well. All depends on your circles, applications, and threat model I suppose.

Xen, Hyper-V, and KVM have all had major security flaws in the form of logic violations, spacial memory corruptions, use-after-free, and pointer corruptions that allowed hypervisor trust boundary violations. I expect most if not all of those classes of bugs could have been prevented by formal verification.

Xen likely has a bad reputation with both of us because of a history of preventable flaws like these.

In my applications every single daemon gets its own sandbox, which is a VM whenever possible. Some with network, some without network, different filesystem and vsock access for maximum damage control and minimal trust between daemons. The hypervisor is the most important security boundary to me especially when isolating user-controlled workloads. The more confidence I can get that it is correct the better.

You're responding to a comment where I wrote that I would never use Xen with an argument not to use Xen. All I'm saying is that "formal verification", at least as it exists in current systems, is not why I wouldn't use Xen.

  • > an argument not to use Xen

    Not my intent but perhaps I communicated poorly. It was an argument that the -reason- Xen has had so many bugs is because it was not built for correctness.

    Formal verification should be a bare minimum for a TCB component to know many classes of bugs that have plagued the most popular hypervisors cannot happen.

    We both clearly agree not to use Xen.

    Anyway, I appreciate the engagement on this all the same.

    Few even know alternatives to xen exist!

    • Yeah, all I'm saying is that I agree with you about Xen, but that I don't agree about the centrality of formal methods --- at least on current projects with current verifications, things could get different now that AI lets us be more ambitious with verification --- in determining attack surface.

      Generally, the less your OS can do, apart from strictly hypervising guest operating systems, the safer you probably are. Hence why people do things like seL4.

      1 reply →