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: <4BAA1A53.20207@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:57:39 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
CC:	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...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

On 03/24/2010 03:46 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 03:05:02PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
>> On 03/24/2010 02:50 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>      
>    
>>> I don't want the tool for myself only. A typical perf user expects that
>>> it works transparent.
>>>        
>> A typical kvm user uses libvirt, so we can integrate it with that.
>>      
> Someone who uses libvirt and virt-manager by default is probably not
> interested in this feature at the same level a kvm developer is. And
> developers tend not to use libvirt for low-level kvm development.  A
> number of developers have stated in this thread already that they would
> appreciate a solution for guest enumeration that would not involve
> libvirt.
>    

So would I.  But when I weigh the benefit of truly transparent 
system-wide perf integration for users who don't use libvirt but do use 
perf, versus the cost of transforming kvm from a single-process API to a 
system-wide API with all the complications that I've listed, it comes 
out in favour of not adding the API.

Those few users can probably script something to cover their needs.

>> Someone needs to know about the new guest to fetch its symbols.  Or do
>> you want that part in the kernel too?
>>      
> The samples will be tagged with the guest-name (and some additional
> information perf needs). Perf userspace can access the symbols then
> through /sys/kvm/guest0/fs/...
>    

I take that as a yes?  So we need a virtio-serial client in the kernel 
(which might be exploitable by a malicious guest if buggy) and a 
fs-over-virtio-serial client in the kernel (also exploitable).

>>> Depends on how it is designed. A filesystem approach was already
>>> mentioned. We could create /sys/kvm/ for example to expose information
>>> about virtual machines to userspace. This would not require any new
>>> security hooks.
>>>        
>> Who would set the security context on those files?
>>      
> An approach like: "The files are owned and only readable by the same
> user that started the vm." might be a good start. So a user can measure
> its own guests and root can measure all of them.
>    

That's not how sVirt works.  sVirt isolates a user's VMs from each 
other, so if a guest breaks into qemu it can't break into other guests 
owned by the same user.

The users who need this API (!libvirt and perf) probably don't care 
about sVirt, but a new API must not break it.

>> Plus, we need cgroup  support so you can't see one container's guests
>> from an unrelated container.
>>      
> cgroup support is an issue but we can solve that too. Its in general
> still less complex than going through the whole libvirt-qemu-kvm stack.
>    

It's a tradeoff.  IMO, going through qemu is the better way, and also 
provides more information.

>> Integration with qemu would allow perf to tell us that the guest is
>> hitting the interrupt status register of a virtio-blk device in pci
>> slot 5 (the information is already available through the kvm_mmio
>> trace event, but  only qemu can decode it).
>>      
> Yeah that would be interesting information. But it is more related to
> tracing than to pmu measurements.
> The information which you mentioned above are probably better
> captured by an extension of trace-events to userspace.
>    

It's all related.  You start with perf, see a problem with mmio, call up 
a histogram of mmio or interrupts or whatever, then zoom in on the 
misbehaving device.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/