netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus

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: <20090818110708.GG13878@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:07:08 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for
	vbus_driver objects

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:45:05PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/18/2009 01:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> Suppose a nested guest has two devices.  One a virtual device backed by
>>> its host (our guest), and one a virtual device backed by us (the real
>>> host), and assigned by the guest to the nested guest.  If both devices
>>> use hypercalls, there is no way to distinguish between them.
>>>      
>> Not sure I understand. What I had in mind is that devices would have to
>> either use different hypercalls and map hypercall to address during
>> setup, or pass address with each hypercall.  We get the hypercall,
>> translate the address as if it was pio access, and know the destination?
>>    
>
> There are no different hypercalls.  There's just one hypercall  
> instruction, and there's no standard on how it's used.  If a nested call  
> issues a hypercall instruction, you have no idea if it's calling a  
> Hyper-V hypercall or a vbus/virtio kick.

userspace will know which it is, because hypercall capability
in the device has been activated, and can tell kernel, using
something similar to iosignalfd. No?

> You could have a protocol where you register the hypercall instruction's  
> address with its recipient, but it quickly becomes a tangled mess.

I really thought we could pass the io address in register as an input
parameter. Is there a way to do this in a secure manner?

Hmm. Doesn't kvm use hypercalls now? How does this work with nesting?
For example, in this code in arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:

        switch (nr) {
        case KVM_HC_VAPIC_POLL_IRQ:
                ret = 0;
                break;
        case KVM_HC_MMU_OP:
                r = kvm_pv_mmu_op(vcpu, a0, hc_gpa(vcpu, a1, a2), &ret);
                break;
        default:
                ret = -KVM_ENOSYS;
                break;
        }

how do we know that it's the guest and not the nested guest performing
the hypercall?

> And  for what?  pio and hypercalls have the same performance characteristics.

No idea about that. I'm assuming Gregory knows why he wants to use hypercalls,
I was just trying to help find a way that is also palatable, and flexible.

> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html