Message-ID: <847485d7-0b4b-43f2-c115-d3afeac4ed6b@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 20:28:22 -0700
From:   Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>
CC:     <mst@...hat.com>, <jasowang@...hat.com>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        <quic_sramana@...cinc.com>, <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Souvik Chakravarty <Souvik.Chakravarty@....com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] SCMI Vhost and Virtio backend implementation

I'll let Neeraj respond to more of the core backend details and policy 
enforcement options, but I can provide some details for our prototype 
clock protocol handler. Note that it's a pretty simple proof-of-concept 
handler that's implemented entirely outside of the common clock 
framework. It operates as just another client to the framework. This 
approach has some limitations. And a more full-featured implementation 
could benefit from being implemented in the clock framework itself. But 
that level of support hasn't been necessary for our purposes yet.

On 6/13/2022 10:20 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> +CC: Souvik
> 
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 12:49:53PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
>> This RFC series, provides ARM System Control and Management Interface (SCMI)
>> protocol backend implementation for Virtio transport. The purpose of this
> 
> Hi Neeraj,
> 
> Thanks for this work, I only glanced through the series at first to
> grasp a general understanding of it (without goind into much details for
> now) and I'd have a few questions/concerns that I'll noted down below.
> 
> I focused mainly on the backend server aims/functionalities/issues ignoring
> at first the vhost-scmi entry-point since the vost-scmi accelerator is just
> a (more-or-less) standard means of configuring and grabbing SCMI traffic
> from the VMs into the Host Kernel and so I found more interesting at first
> to understand what we can do with such traffic at first.
> (IOW the vhost-scmi layer is welcome but remain to see what to do with it...)
> 
>> feature is to provide para-virtualized interfaces to guest VMs, to various
>> hardware blocks like clocks, regulators. This allows the guest VMs to
>> communicate their resource needs to the host, in the absence of direct
>> access to those resources.
> 
> In an SCMI stack the agents (like VMs) issue requests to an SCMI platform
> backend that is in charge of policying and armonizing such requests
> eventually denying some of these (possibly malicious) while allowing others
> (possibly armonizing/merging such reqs); with your solution basically the
> SCMI backend in Kernel marshals/conveys all of such SCMI requests to the
> proper Linux Kernel subsystem that is usually in charge of it, using
> dedicated protocol handlers that basically translates SCMI requests to
> Linux APIs calls to the Host. (I may have oversimplified or missed
> something...)
> 
> At the price of a bit of overhead and code-duplication introduced by
> this SCMI Backend you can indeed leverage the existing mechanisms for
> resource accounting and sharing included in such Linux subsystems (like
> Clock framework), and that's nice and useful, BUT how do you policy/filter
> (possibly dinamically as VMs come and go) what these VMs can see and do
> with these resources ?
> 

Currently, our only level of filtering is for which clocks we choose to 
expose over SCMI. Those chosen clocks are exposed to all VMs equally. 
The clock protocol handler exposes a registration function, which we 
call from our clock drivers. Which clocks we register are currently 
hardcoded in the drivers themselves. We often want to register all the 
clocks in a given driver, since we have separate drivers for each clock 
controller and many clock controllers are already dedicated to a 
particular core or subsystem. So if that core or subsystem needs to be 
controlled by a VM, then we give the VM all of its clocks. This can mean 
exposing a large number of clocks (in the hundreds).


> ... MORE importantly how do you protect the Host (or another VM) from
> unacceptable (or possibly malicious) requests conveyed from one VM request
> vqueue into the Linux subsystems (like clocks) ?
> 

The clock protocol handler tracks its own reference counts for each 
clock that's been registered with it. It'll only enable clocks through 
the host framework when the reference count increases from 0 -> 1, and 
it'll only disable clocks through host framework when the reference 
count decreases from 1 -> 0. And since the clock framework has its own 
internal reference counts, then it's not possible for a VM to disable 
clocks that the host itself has enabled.

We don't support frequency aggregation, so a VM could override the 
frequency request of another VM or of the host. We could support max 
aggregation across VMs, so that a VM couldn't reduce the frequency below 
what another VM has requested. But without clock framework changes, we 
can't aggregate with the local host clients. So a VM could reduce the 
frequency below what the host has requested.

Generally speaking we don't expect more than one entity (VM or host) to 
control a given clock at a time. But all we can currently enforce is 
that clocks only turn off when *all* entities (including the the host) 
request them to be off.


> I saw you have added a good deal of DT bindings for the backend
> describing protocols, so you could just expose only some protocols via
> the backend (if I get it right) but you cannot anyway selectively expose
> only a subset of resources to the different agents, so, if you expose the
> clock protocol, that will be visible by any VMs and an agent could potentially
> kill the Host or mount some clock related attack acting on the right clock.
> (I mean you cannot describe in the Host DT a number X of clocks to be
> supported by the Host Linux Clock framework BUT then expose selectively to
> the SCMI agents only a subset Y < X to shield the Host from misbehaviour...
> ...at least not in a dynamic way avoiding to bake a fixed policy into
> the backend...or maybe I'm missing how you can do that, in such a case
> please explain...)
> 
> Moreover, in a normal SCMI stack the server resides out of reach from the
> OSPM agents since the server, wherever it sits, has the last word and can
> deny and block unreasonable/malicious requests while armonizing others: this
> means the typical SCMI platform fw is configured in such a way that clearly
> defines a set of policies to be enforced between the access of the various
> agents. (and it can reside in the trusted codebase given its 'reduced'
> size...even though this policies are probably at the moment not so
> dynamically modificable there either...)
> 
> With your approach of a Linux Kernel based SCMI platform backend you are
> certainly using all the good and well proven mechanisms offered by the
> Kernel to share and co-ordinate access to such resources, which is good
> (.. even though Linux is not so small in term of codebase to be used as
> a TCB to tell the truth :D), BUT I don't see the same level of policying
> or filtering applied anywhere in the proposed RFCs, especially to protect
> the Host which at the end is supposed to use the same Linux subsystems and
> possibly share some of those resources for its own needs.
> 
> I saw the Base protocol basic implementation you provided to expose the
> supported backend protocols to the VMs, it would be useful to see how
> you plan to handle something like the Clock protocol you mention in the
> example below. (if you have Clock protocol backend that as WIP already
> would be interesting to see it...)
> 
> Another issue/criticality that comes to my mind is how do you gather in
> general basic resources states/descriptors from the existing Linux subsystems
> (even leaving out any policying concerns): as an example, how do you gather
> from the Host Clock framework the list of available clocks and their rates
> descriptors that you're going expose to a specific VMs once this latter will
> issue the related SCMI commands to get to know which SCMI Clock domain are
> available ?
> (...and I mean in a dynamic way not using a builtin per-platform baked set of
>   resources known to be made available... I doubt that any sort of DT
>   description would be accepted in this regards ...)
> 

As mentioned, the list of clocks we choose to expose are currently 
hardcoded in the clock drivers outside of the clock framework. There is 
no dynamic policy in place.

For supported rates, we currently just implement the 
CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES command using rate ranges, rather than lists of 
discrete rates (num_rates_flags[12] = 1). And we just communicate the 
full u32 range 0..U32_MAX with step_size=1. We do this for simplicity. 
Many of our clocks only support a small list of discrete rates (though 
some support large ranges). If a VM requests a rate not aligned to these 
discrete rates, then we'll just round up to what the host supports. We 
currently operate under the assumption that the VM knows what it needs 
and doesn't need to query the specific supported rates from the host. 
That's fine for our current use cases, at least. Publishing 
clock-specific rate lists and/or proper ranges would be more complicated 
and require some amount of clock framework changes to get this information.


>>
>> 1. Architecture overview
>> ---------------------
>>
>> Below diagram shows the overall software architecture of SCMI communication
>> between guest VM and the host software. In this diagram, guest is a linux
>> VM; also, host uses KVM linux.
>>
>>           GUEST VM                   HOST
>>   +--------------------+    +---------------------+    +--------------+
>>   |   a. Device A      |    |   k. Device B       |    |      PLL     |
>>   |  (Clock consumer)  |    |  (Clock consumer)   |    |              |
>>   +--------------------+    +---------------------+    +--------------+
>>            |                         |                         ^
>>            v                         v                         |
>>   +--------------------+    +---------------------+    +-----------------+
>>   | b. Clock Framework |    | j. Clock Framework  | -->| l. Clock Driver |
>>   +-- -----------------+    +---------------------+    +-----------------+
>>            |                         ^
>>            v                         |
>>   +--------------------+    +------------------------+
>>   |  c. SCMI Clock     |    | i. SCMI Virtio Backend |
>>   +--------------------+    +------------------------+
>>            |                         ^
>>            v                         |
>>   +--------------------+    +----------------------+
>>   |  d. SCMI Virtio    |    |   h. SCMI Vhost      |<-----------+
>>   +--------------------+    +----------------------+            |
>>            |                         ^                          |
>>            v                         |                          |
>> +-------------------------------------------------+    +-----------------+
>> |              e. Virtio Infra                    |    |    g. VMM       |
>> +-------------------------------------------------+    +-----------------+
>>            |                         ^                           ^
>>            v                         |                           |
>> +-------------------------------------------------+             |
>> |                f. Hypervisor                    |-------------
>> +-------------------------------------------------+
>>
> 
> Looking at the above schema and thinking out loud where any dynamic
> policying against the resources can fit (..and trying desperately NOT to push
> that into the Kernel too :P...) ... I think that XEN was trying something similar
> (with a real backend SCMI platform FW at the end of the pipe though I think...) and
> in their case the per-VMs resource allocation was performed using SCMI
> BASE_SET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS commands issued by the Hypervisor/VMM itself
> I think or by a Dom0 elected as a trusted agent and so allowed to configure
> such resource partitioning ...
> 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org/msg113868.html
> 
> ...maybe a similar approach, with some sort of SCMI Trusted Agent living within
> the VMM and in charge of directing such resources' partitioning between
> VMs by issuing BASE_SET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS towards the Kernel SCMI Virtio
> Backend, could help keeping at least the policy bits related to the VMs out of
> the kernel/DTs and possibly dynamically configurable following VMs lifecycle.
> 
> Even though, in our case ALL the resource management by device ID would have to
> happen in the Kernel SCMI backend at the end, given that is where the SCMI
> platform resides indeed, BUT at least you could keep the effective policy out of
> kernel space, doing something like:
> 
> 1. VMM/TrustedAgent query Kernel_SCMI_Virtio_backend for available resources
> 
> 2. VMM/TrustedAg decides resources allocation between VMs (and/or possibly the Host
>     based on some configured policy)
> 
> 3. VMM/TrustedAgent issues BASE_SET_DEVICE_PERMISSIONS/PROTOCOLS to the
>     Kernel_SCMI_Virtio_backend
> 
> 4. Kernel_SCMI_Virtio_backend enforces resource partioning and sharing
>     when processing subsequent VMs SCMI requests coming via Vhost-SCMI
> 
> ...where the TrustedAgent here could be (I guess) the VMM or the Host or
> both with different level of privilege if you don't want the VMM to be able
> to configure resources access for the whole Host.
> 
>> a. Device A             This is the client kernel driver in guest VM,
>>                          for ex. diplay driver, which uses standard
>>                          clock framework APIs to vote for a clock.
>>
>> b. Clock Framework      Underlying kernel clock framework on
>>                          guest.
>>
>> c. SCMI Clock           SCMI interface based clock driver.
>>
>> d. SCMI Virtio          Underlying SCMI framework, using Virtio as
>>                          transport driver.
>>
>> e. Virtio Infra         Virtio drivers on guest VM. These drivers
>>                          initiate virtqueue requests over Virtio
>>                          transport (MMIO/PCI), and forwards response
>>                          to SCMI Virtio registered callbacks.
>>
>> f. Hypervisor           Hosted Hypervisor (KVM for ex.), which traps
>>                          and forwards requests on virtqueue ring
>>                          buffers to the VMM.
>>
>> g. VMM                  Virtual Machine Monitor, running on host userspace,
>>                          which manages the lifecycle of guest VMs, and forwards
>>                          guest initiated virtqueue requests as IOCTLs to the
>>                          Vhost driver on host.
>>
>> h. SCMI Vhost           In kernel driver, which handles SCMI virtqueue
>>                          requests from guest VMs. This driver forwards the
>>                          requests to SCMI Virtio backend driver, and returns
>>                          the response from backend, over the virtqueue ring
>>                          buffers.
>>
>> i. SCMI Virtio Backend  SCMI backend, which handles the incoming SCMI messages
>>                          from SCMI Vhost driver, and forwards them to the
>>                          backend protocols like clock and voltage protocols.
>>                          The backend protocols uses the host apis for those
>>                          resources like clock APIs provided by clock framework,
>>                          to vote/request for the resource. The response from
>>                          the host api is parceled into a SCMI response message,
>>                          and is returned to the SCMI Vhost driver. The SCMI
>>                          Vhost driver in turn, returns the reponse over the
>>                          Virtqueue reponse buffers.
>>
> 
> Last but not least, this SCMI Virtio Backend layer in charge of
> processing incoming SCMI packets, interfacing with the Linux subsystems
> final backend and building SCMI replies from Linux will introduce a
> certain level of code/funcs duplication given that this same SCMI basic
> processing capabilities have been already baked in the SCMI stacks found in
> SCP and in TF-A (.. and maybe a few other other proprietary backends)...
> 
> ... but this is something maybe to be addressed in general in a
> different context not something that can be addressed by this series.
> 
> Sorry for the usual flood of words :P ... I'll have a more in deep
> review of the series in the next days, for now I wanted just to share my
> concerns and (maybe wrong) understanding and see what you or Sudeep and
> Souvik think about.
> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists