linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] parker: PARtitioned KERnel

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABgc4wThvZrxBLb0JRiROCws12qLNUxwcb4cJa_W63qh41apjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 21:14:26 +0100
From: Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Fam Zheng <fam.zheng@...edance.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, 
	linyongting@...edance.com, songmuchun@...edance.com, 
	satish.kumar@...edance.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, yuanzhu@...edance.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org, 
	liangma@...edance.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, guojinhui.liam@...edance.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Thom Hughes <thom.hughes@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] parker: PARtitioned KERnel

On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 9:10 PM Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 8:02 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> On September 24, 2025 8:22:54 AM PDT, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> >On 9/23/25 08:31, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> >> In terms of fault isolation or security, all kernel instances share
>> >> the same domain, as there is no supervising mechanism. A kernel bug
>> >> in any partition can cause problems for the whole physical machine.
>> >> This is a tradeoff for low-overhead / low-complexity, but hope in
>> >> the future we can take advantage of some hardware mechanism to
>> >> introduce some isolation.
>> >I just don't think this is approach is viable. The buck needs to stop
>> >_somewhere_. You can't just have a bunch of different kernels, with
>> >nothing in charge of the system as a whole.
>> >
>> >Just think of bus locks. They affect the whole system. What if one
>> >kernel turns off split lock detection? Or has a different rate limit
>> >than the others? What if one kernel is a big fan of WBINVD? How about
>> >when they use resctrl to partition an L3 cache? How about microcode updates?
>> >
>> >I'd just guess that there are a few hundred problems like that. Maybe more.
>> >
>> >I'm not saying this won't be useful for a handful of folks in a tightly
>> >controlled environment. But I just don't think it has a place in
>> >mainline where it needs to work for everyone.
>>
>> Again, this comes down to why a partitioning top level hypervisor is The Right Thing[TM].
>>
>> IBM mainframes are, again, the archetype here, having done it standard since VM/370 in 1972. This was running on machines with a *maximum* of 4 MB memory.
>>
>> This approach works.
>>
>> Nearly every OS on these machines tend to run under a *second* level hypervisor, although that isn't required.
>
>
I'm trying to think about the hypervisor approach you mentioned, but
if it doesn't provide memory and I/O isolation, what is the advantage
over this RFC? (if it doesn I think then we're talking about a
specially configured KVM which does 1:1 vcpu pinning etc).


Sorry, forgot to turn off email html mode in my previous message..


Fam