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

Message-ID: <585D086B-733C-4274-B274-794F360E8E33@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 15:13:37 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: fam@...hon.net, Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net>
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 September 24, 2025 1:14:26 PM PDT, Fam Zheng <fam@...hon.net> wrote:
>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
>

The difference is that this is highly invasive to the OS, which affects developers and users not wanting this feature.