[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110526111624.GG1763@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:16:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gnatapov@...hat.com,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call
filtering
* Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> > It would be possible to further increase isolation there by also
> > passing the IO/MMIO decoding to the worker thread - but i'm not
> > sure that's truly needed. Most of the risk is where most of the
> > code is - and the code is in the worker task which interprets
> > on-disk data, protocols, etc.
>
> I've suggested in the past to add an "mmiofd" facility to kvm,
> similar to ioeventfd. This is how it would work:
>
> - userspace configures kvm with an mmio range and a pipe
> - guest writes to that range write a packet to the pipe describing the write
> - guest reads from that range write a packet to the pipe describing
> the read, then wait for a reply packet with the result
>
> The advantages would be
> - avoid heavyweight exit; kvm can simply wake up a thread on another
> core and resume processing
> - writes can be pipelined, similar to how PCI writes are posted
> - supports process separation
Yes, that was my exact thought, a per transport channel fd.
> So far no one has posted an implementation but it should be pretty
> simple.
tools/kvm/ could make quick use of it - and it's a performance
optimization mainly IMO, not primarily a security feature.
If you whip up a quick untested prototype for the KVM side we could
look into adding tooling support for it and could test it.
As long as it's provided as an opt-in ioctl() which if fails (on
older kernels) we fall back to the vcpu-fd, it should be relatively
straightforward to support on the tooling side as well AFAICS.
Thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists