linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

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: <1329354245.6976.25.camel@concordia>
Date:	Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:04:05 +1100
From:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
	KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>,
	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api

On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 22:21 +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 February 2012, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > On 07.02.2012, at 07:58, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 13:46 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > >> You're exposing a large, complex kernel subsystem that does very
> > >> low-level things with the hardware.  It's a potential source of exploits
> > >> (from bugs in KVM or in hardware).  I can see people wanting to be
> > >> selective with access because of that.
> > > 
> > > Exactly.
> > > 
> > > In a perfect world I'd agree with Anthony, but in reality I think
> > > sysadmins are quite happy that they can prevent some users from using
> > > KVM.
> > > 
> > > You could presumably achieve something similar with capabilities or
> > > whatever, but a node in /dev is much simpler.
> > 
> > Well, you could still keep the /dev/kvm node and then have syscalls operate on the fd.
> > 
> > But again, I don't see the problem with the ioctl interface. It's nice, extensible and works great for us.
> > 
> 
> ioctl is good for hardware devices and stuff that you want to enumerate
> and/or control permissions on. For something like KVM that is really a
> core kernel service, a syscall makes much more sense.

Yeah maybe. That distinction is at least in part just historical.

The first problem I see with using a syscall is that you don't need one
syscall for KVM, you need ~90. OK so you wouldn't do that, you'd use a
multiplexed syscall like epoll_ctl() - or probably several
(vm/vcpu/etc).

Secondly you still need a handle/context for those syscalls, and I think
the most sane thing to use for that is an fd.

At that point you've basically reinvented ioctl :)

I also think it is an advantage that you have a node in /dev for
permissions. I know other "core kernel" interfaces don't use a /dev
node, but arguably that is their loss.

> I would certainly never mix the two concepts: If you use a chardev to get
> a file descriptor, use ioctl to do operations on it, and if you use a 
> syscall to get the file descriptor then use other syscalls to do operations
> on it.

Sure, we use a syscall to get the fd (open) and then other syscalls to
do operations on it, ioctl and kvm_vcpu_run. ;)

But seriously, I guess that makes sense. Though it's a bit of a pity
because if you want a syscall for any of it, eg. vcpu_run(), then you
have to basically reinvent ioctl for all the other little operations.

cheers

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)