linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

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

Message-ID: <20100322192259.GD21919@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:22:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>, ziteng.huang@...el.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 project


* Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws> wrote:

> On 03/22/2010 12:34 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
> >
> >>>>>  - Easy default reference to guest instances, and a way for tools to
> >>>>>    reference them symbolically as well in the multi-guest case. Preferably
> >>>>>    something trustable and kernel-provided - not some indirect information
> >>>>>    like a PID file created by libvirt-manager or so.
> >>>>Usually 'layering violation' is trotted out at such suggestions.
> >>>>[...]
> >>>That's weird, how can a feature request be a 'layering violation'?
> >>The 'something trustable and kernel-provided'.  The kernel knows nothing
> >>about guest names.
> >The kernel certainly knows about other resources such as task names or network
> >interface names or tracepoint names. This is kernel design 101.
> >
> >>>If something that users find straightforward and usable is a layering
> >>>violation to you (such as easily being able to access their own files on
> >>>the host as well ...) then i think you need to revisit the definition of
> >>>that term instead of trying to fix the user.
> >>Here is the explanation, you left it quoted:
> >>
> >>>>[...]  I don't like using the term, because sometimes the layers are
> >>>>incorrect and need to be violated.  But it should be done explicitly, not
> >>>>as a shortcut for a minor feature (and profiling is a minor feature, most
> >>>>users will never use it, especially guest-from-host).
> >>>>
> >>>>The fact is we have well defined layers today, kvm virtualizes the cpu
> >>>>and memory, qemu emulates devices for a single guest, libvirt manages
> >>>>guests. We break this sometimes but there has to be a good reason.  So
> >>>>perf needs to talk to libvirt if it wants names.  Could be done via
> >>>>linking, or can be done using a pluging libvirt drops into perf.
> >This is really just the much-discredited microkernel approach for keeping
> >global enumeration data that should be kept by the kernel ...
> >
> >Lets look at the ${HOME}/.qemu/qmp/ enumeration method suggested by Anthony.
> >There's numerous ways that this can break:
> >
> >  - Those special files can get corrupted, mis-setup, get out of sync, or can
> >    be hard to discover.
> >
> >  - The ${HOME}/.qemu/qmp/ solution suggested by Anthony has a very obvious
> >    design flaw: it is per user. When i'm root i'd like to query _all_ current
> >    guest images, not just the ones started by root. A system might not even
> >    have a notion of '${HOME}'.
> >
> >  - Apps might start KVM vcpu instances without adhering to the
> >    ${HOME}/.qemu/qmp/ access method.
> 
> Not all KVM vcpus are running operating systems.

But we want to allow developers to instrument all of them ...

> Transitive had a product that was using a KVM context to run their
> binary translator which allowed them full access to the host
> processes virtual address space range.  In this case, there is no
> kernel and there are no devices.

And your point is that such vcpus should be excluded from profiling just 
because they fall outside the Qemu/libvirt umbrella?

That is a ridiculous position.

	Ingo
--
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/