linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] KVM: Add arch specific interfaces for sampling guest callchains

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: <ZXeTvCLURmwzpDkP@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 14:57:00 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Tianyi Liu <i.pear@...look.com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        mlevitsk@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] KVM: Add arch specific interfaces for sampling
 guest callchains

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 08:12:18 +0000, Tianyi Liu <i.pear@...look.com> wrote:
> > +bool kvm_arch_vcpu_read_virt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, gva_t addr, void *dest, unsigned int length)
> > +{
> > +	/* TODO: implement */
> > +	return false;
> > +}
> 
> I don't do it very often, but the only thing I can say about this is
> *NAK*.
> 
> You have decided to ignore the previous review comments, which is your
> prerogative. However, I absolutely refuse to add half baked and
> *dangerous* stuff to the arm64's version of KVM.
> 
> If you can convince the x86 folks that they absolutely want this, fine
> by me. But this need to be a buy-in interface, not something that is
> required for each and every architecture to have stubs, wrongly
> suggesting that extra work is needed.
> 
> For arm64, the way to go is to have this in userspace. Which is both
> easy to implement and safe. And until we have such a userspace
> implementation as a baseline, I will not consider a kernel
> version.

I too want more justification of why this needs to be handled in the kernel[*].
The usefulness of this is dubious for many modern setups/workloads, and outright
undesirable for some, e.g. many (most?) cloud providers want to make it all but
impossible to access customer data.

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZSlNsn-f1j2bB8pW@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com