linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] kvm: notify host when guest panicked

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:01:44 +0800
From:	Wen Congyang <wency@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>
CC:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] kvm: notify host when guest panicked

At 03/15/2012 02:46 AM, Eric Northup Wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:16:05PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2012 03:14 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:07:46PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>> On 03/14/2012 01:11 PM, Wen Congyang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think we want to use the driver.  Instead, have a small
>> piece of
>>>>>>> code that resets the device and pushes out a string (the panic
>> message?)
>>>>>>> without any interrupts etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still going to be less reliable than a hypercall, I agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you still want to use complicated and less reliable way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you willing to try it out and see how complicated it really is?
>>>>>
>>>>> While it's more complicated, it's also more flexible.  You can
>>>>> communicate the panic message, whether the guest is attempting a
>> kdump
>>>>> and its own recovery or whether it wants the host to do it, etc., you
>>>>> can communicate less severe failures like oopses.
>>>>>
>>>> hypercall can take arguments to achieve the same.
>>>
>>> It has to be designed in advance; and every time we notice something's
>>> missing we have to update the host kernel.
>>>
>>
>> We and in the designed stage now. Not to late to design something flexible
>> :) Panic hypercall can take GPA of a buffer where host puts panic info
>> as a parameter.  This buffer can be read by QEMU and passed to management.
>>
> 
> If a host kernel change is in the works, I think it might be cleanest to
> have the host kernel export a new kind of VCPU exit for unhandled-by-KVM
> hypercalls.  Then usermode can respond to the hypercall as appropriate.
>  This would permit adding or changing future hypercalls without host kernel
> changes.
> 
> "Guest panic" is almost the definition of not-a-fast-path, and so what's
> the reason to handle it in the host kernel.
> 
> Punting to user-space wouldn't be a magic bullet for getting good
> interfaces designed, but in my opinion it is a better place to be doing
> them.
> 

Do you mean that: the guest execute vmcall instruction, and the host kernel
exits to userspace. The userspace will deal with the vmexit?

Thanks
Wen Congyang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/