[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: Vhost-pci RFC2.0

From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [virtio-dev] Re: Vhost-pci RFC2.0
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:36:19 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv: Gecko/20080226 SUSE/ Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

On 2017-04-19 12:02, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>>> The design presented here intends to use only one BAR to expose
>>>>> both TX and RX. The two VMs share an intermediate memory
>>>>> here, why couldn't we give the same permission to TX and RX?
>>>> For security and/or safety reasons: the TX side can then safely prepare
>>>> and sign a message in-place because the RX side cannot mess around with
>>>> it while not yet being signed (or check-summed). Saves one copy from a
>>>> secure place into the shared memory.
>>> If we allow guest1 to write to RX, what safety issue would it cause to
>>> guest2?
>> This way, guest1 could trick guest2, in a race condition, to sign a
>> modified message instead of the original one.
> Just align the context that we are talking about: RX is the intermediate
> shared ring that guest1 uses to receive packets and guest2 uses to send
> packet.
> Seems the issue is that guest1 will receive a hacked message from RX
> (modified by itself). How would it affect guest2?

Retry: guest2 wants to send a signed/hashed message to guest1. For that
purpose, it starts to build that message inside the shared memory that
guest1 can at least read, then guest2 signs that message, also in-place.
If guest1 can modify the message inside the ring while guest2 has not
yet signed it, the result is invalid.

Now, if guest2 is the final receiver of the message, nothing is lost,
guest2 just shot itself into the foot. However, if guest2 is just a
router (gray channel) and the message travels further, guest2 now has
corrupted that channel without allowing the final receive to detect
that. That's the scenario.

>>>>>>>     Fig. 4 shows the inter-VM notification path for 2.0 (2.1 is
>>>>>>> similar).
>>>>>>> The four eventfds are allocated by virtio-net, and shared with
>>>>>>> vhost-pci-net:
>>>>>>> Uses virtio-net’s TX/RX kickfd as the vhost-pci-net’s RX/TX callfd
>>>>>>> Uses virtio-net’s TX/RX callfd as the vhost-pci-net’s RX/TX kickfd
>>>>>>> Example of how it works:
>>>>>>> After packets are put into vhost-pci-net’s TX, the driver kicks TX,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> causes the an interrupt associated with fd3 to be injected to
>>>>>>> virtio-net
>>>>>>>     The draft code of the 2.0 design is ready, and can be found
>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>> Qemu: _https://github.com/wei-w-wang/vhost-pci-device_
>>>>>>> Guest driver: _https://github.com/wei-w-wang/vhost-pci-driver_
>>>>>>>     We tested the 2.0 implementation using the Spirent packet
>>>>>>> generator to transmit 64B packets, the results show that the
>>>>>>> throughput of vhost-pci reaches around 1.8Mpps, which is around
>>>>>>> two times larger than the legacy OVS+DPDK. Also, vhost-pci shows
>>>>>>> better scalability than OVS+DPDK.
>>>>>> Do you have numbers for the symmetric 2.1 case as well? Or is the
>>>>>> driver
>>>>>> not yet ready for that yet? Otherwise, I could try to make it work
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> a simplistic vhost-pci 2.1 version in Jailhouse as well. That would
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> a better picture of how much additional complexity this would mean
>>>>>> compared to our ivshmem 2.0.
>>>>> Implementation of 2.1 is not ready yet. We can extend it to 2.1 after
>>>>> the common driver frame is reviewed.
>>>> Can you you assess the needed effort?
>>>> For us, this is a critical feature, because we need to decide if
>>>> vhost-pci can be an option at all. In fact, the "exotic ring" will be
>>>> the only way to provide secure inter-partition communication on
>>>> Jailhouse.
>>> If what is here for 2.0 is suitable to be upstream-ed, I think it will
>>> be easy
>>> to extend it to 2.1 (probably within 1 month).
>> Unfortunate ordering here, though. Specifically if we need to modify
>> existing things instead of just adding something. We will need 2.1 prior
>> to committing to 2.0 being the right thing.
> If you want, we can get the common part of design ready first,
> then we can start to build on the common part at the same time.
> The draft code of 2.0 is ready. I can clean it up, making it easier for
> us to continue and change.

Without going into details yet, a meta requirement for us will be to
have advanced features optional, negotiable. Basically, we would like to
minimize the interface to an equivalent of what the ivshmem 2.0 is about
(there is no need for more in a safe/secure partitioning scenario). At
the same time, the complexity for a guest should remain low as well.

>From past experience, the only way to ensure that is having a working
prototype. So I will have to look into enabling that.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]