netdev - RE: [PATCH] vsock: only load vmci transport on VMware hypervisor by default

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: <KL1P15301MB000812AD1EFB8A3986EC6277BF850@KL1P15301MB0008.APCP153.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:21:21 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     "Jorgen S. Hansen" <jhansen@...are.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        "Haiyang Zhang" <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        George Zhang <georgezhang@...are.com>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, Asias He <asias@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "Cathy Avery" <cavery@...hat.com>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "Rolf Neugebauer" <rolf.neugebauer@...ker.com>,
        Dave Scott <dave.scott@...ker.com>,
        Marcelo Cerri <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
        "olaf@...fle.de" <olaf@...fle.de>,
        "joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] vsock: only load vmci transport on VMware hypervisor by
 default

> From: Jorgen S. Hansen [mailto:jhansen@...are.com]
> > On Aug 22, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
> wrote:
> > ...
> > We *can* by looking at the destination CID.  Please take a look at
> > drivers/misc/vmw_vmci/vmci_route.c:vmci_route() to see how VMCI
> handles
> > nested virt.
> >
> > It boils down to something like this:
> >
> >  static int vsock_stream_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr,
> >                                  int addr_len, int flags)
> >  {
> >      ...
> >      if (remote_addr.svm_cid == VMADDR_CID_HOST)
> >          transport = host_transport;
> >      else
> >          transport = guest_transport;
> >
> > It's easy for connect(2) but Jorgen mentioned it's harder for listen(2)
> > because the socket would need to listen on both transports.  We define
> > two new constants VMADDR_CID_LISTEN_FROM_GUEST and
> > VMADDR_CID_LISTEN_FROM_HOST for bind(2) so that applications can
> decide
> > which side to listen on.
> 
> If a socket is bound to VMADDR_CID_HOST, we would consider that socket as
> bound to the host side transport, so that would be the same as
> VMADDR_CID_LISTEN_FROM_GUEST. For the guest, we have
> IOCTL_VM_SOCKETS_GET_LOCAL_CID, so that could be used to get and bind
> a socket to the guest transport (VMCI will always return the guest CID as the
> local one, if the VMCI driver is used in a guest, and it looks like virtio will do
> the same). We could treat VMADDR_CID_ANY as always being the guest
> transport, since that is the use case where you don’t know upfront what
> your CID is, if we don’t want to listen on all transports. So we would use the
> host transport, if a socket is bound to VMADDR_CID_HOST, or if there is no
> guest transport, and in all other cases use the guest transport. However,
> having a couple of symbolic names like you suggest certainly makes it more
> obvious, and could be used in combination with this. It would be a plus if
> existing applications would function as intended in most cases.
> 
> >   Or the listen socket could simply listen to
> > both sides.
> 
> The only problem here would be the potential for a guest and a host app to
> have a conflict wrt port numbers, even though they would be able to
> operate fine, if restricted to their appropriate transport.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jorgen

Hi Jorgen, Stefan,
Thank you for the detailed analysis!
You have a much better understanding than me about the complex
scenarios. Can you please work out a patch? :-)

IMO Linux driver of Hyper-V sockets is the simplest case, as we only have
the "to host" option (the host side driver of Hyper-V sockets runs on 
Windows kernel and I don't think the other hypervisors emulate
the full Hyper-V VMBus 4.0, which is required to support Hyper-V sockets).

-- Dexuan