netdev - Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

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: <20090914165320.GA3851@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:53:20 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Cc:	"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:08:55PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:00:21PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> FWIW: VBUS handles this situation via the "memctx" abstraction.  IOW,
> >> the memory is not assumed to be a userspace address.  Rather, it is a
> >> memctx-specific address, which can be userspace, or any other type
> >> (including hardware, dma-engine, etc).  As long as the memctx knows how
> >> to translate it, it will work.
> > 
> > How would permissions be handled?
> 
> Same as anything else, really.  Read on for details.
> 
> > it's easy to allow an app to pass in virtual addresses in its own address space.
> 
> Agreed, and this is what I do.
> 
> The guest always passes its own physical addresses (using things like
> __pa() in linux).  This address passed is memctx specific, but generally
> would fall into the category of "virtual-addresses" from the hosts
> perspective.
> 
> For a KVM/AlacrityVM guest example, the addresses are GPAs, accessed
> internally to the context via a gfn_to_hva conversion (you can see this
> occuring in the citation links I sent)
> 
> For Ira's example, the addresses would represent a physical address on
> the PCI boards, and would follow any kind of relevant rules for
> converting a "GPA" to a host accessible address (even if indirectly, via
> a dma controller).

So vbus can let an application access either its own virtual memory or a
physical memory on a PCI device.  My question is, is any application
that's allowed to do the former also granted rights to do the later?

> >  But we can't let the guest specify physical addresses.
> 
> Agreed.  Neither your proposal nor mine operate this way afaict.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Kind Regards,
> -Greg
> 


--
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