linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Persistent grant maps for xen blk drivers

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:34:14 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Oliver Chick <oliver.chick@...rix.com>
CC:	<xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Persistent grant maps for xen blk drivers

On 19/09/12 11:51, Oliver Chick wrote:
> This patch implements persistent grants for the xen-blk{front,back}
> mechanism.
[...]
> We (ijc, and myself) have introduced a new constant,
> BLKIF_MAX_PERS_REQUESTS_PER_DEV. This is to prevent a malicious guest
> from attempting a DoS, by supplying fresh grefs, causing the Dom0
> kernel from to map excessively. 
[...]
> 2) Otherwise, we revert to non-persistent grants for all future grefs.

Why fallback instead of immediately failing the request?

> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> index 73f196c..f95dee9 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ struct pending_req {
>  	unsigned short		operation;
>  	int			status;
>  	struct list_head	free_list;
> +	u8			is_pers;

Using "pers" as an abbreviation for "persistent" isn't obvious.  For
readability it may be better spell it in full.

> +/*
> + * Maximum number of persistent grants that can be mapped by Dom0 for each
> + * interface. This is set to be the size of the ring, as this is a limit on
> + * the number of requests that can be inflight at any one time. 256 imposes
> + * an overhead of 11MB of mapped kernel space per interface.
> + */
> +#define BLKIF_MAX_PERS_REQUESTS_PER_DEV 256

This 11MB per VBD seems like a lot.  With 150 VMs each with 2 VBDs this
requires > 3 GB.  Is this a scalability problem?

Does there need to be a mechanism to expire old maps in blkback?

David
--
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/