[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/s390x/kvm: Fix problem when running with

From: Thomas Huth
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/s390x/kvm: Fix problem when running with SELinux under z/VM
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:12:13 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0

On 19.09.2017 15:03, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.09.2017 14:48, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 19.09.2017 14:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 18.09.2017 09:43, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> On 09/15/2017 04:36 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> On 29.03.2017 16:25, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/29/2017 04:21 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24.03.2017 10:39, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/24/2017 10:26 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When running QEMU with KVM under z/VM, the memory for the guest
>>>>>>>>> is allocated via legacy_s390_alloc() since the KVM_CAP_S390_COW
>>>>>>>>> extension is not supported on z/VM. legacy_s390_alloc() then uses
>>>>>>>>> mmap(... PROT_EXEC ...) for the guest memory - but this does not
>>>>>>>>> work when running with SELinux enabled, mmap() fails and QEMU aborts
>>>>>>>>> with the following error message:
>>>>>>>>>  cannot set up guest memory 's390.ram': Permission denied
>>>>>>>>> Looking at the other allocator function qemu_anon_ram_alloc(), it
>>>>>>>>> seems like PROT_EXEC is normally not needed for allocating the
>>>>>>>>> guest RAM, and indeed, the guest also starts successfully under
>>>>>>>>> z/VM when we remove the PROT_EXEC from the legacy_s390_alloc()
>>>>>>>>> function. So let's get rid of that flag here to be able to run
>>>>>>>>> with SELinux under z/VM, too.
>>>>>>>> Older z/VM versions do not provide the enhanced suppression on 
>>>>>>>> protection
>>>>>>>> facility, which would result in guest failures as soon as the kernel
>>>>>>>> starts dirty pages tracking by write protecting the pages via the page
>>>>>>>> table. Some kernel release back (last time I checked) the PROT_EXEC 
>>>>>>>> was 
>>>>>>>> necessary to prevent the dirty pages tracking from taking place. So 
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> patch would break KVM in that case.
>>>>>>>> Newer z/VMs (e.g. 6.3) do provide ESOP. SO the question is,
>>>>>>>> why is KVM_CAP_S390_COW not set?
>>>>>>> I now had another look at this, and seems like the ESOP bit is indeed
>>>>>>> not set in S390_lowcore.machine_flags here. According to /proc/sysinfo,
>>>>>>> z/VM is version 6.1.0 here, so I guess that's just too old for ESOP?
>>>>>> Yes, this was introduced with z/VM 6.3
>>>>> FWIW, the last version without ESOP, z/VM 6.2, is now end of life,
>>>>> according to: http://www.vm.ibm.com/techinfo/lpmigr/vmleos.html
>>>>> ... so I guess we could remove the legacy_s390_alloc() function now?
>>>> I recently learned that you can buy some extended z/VM support not sure how
>>>> long this will be available. In addition, ESOP was added with z10, so
>>>> if we still care about z9 and older then this would break things on
>>>> very very old boxes.
>>> I wonder if that is really relevant anymore.
>>> Existing user on such machines (I doubt there are many) can simply stick
>>> to QEMU <= 2.10. Or do we actually expect people with such old
>>> environments to use latest and grates QEMU versions?
>>> We could add an error message an error out.
>> Well, as long as the code does not cause any trouble for us, and as long
>> as there still might be possible users, there is also no real urge to
>> remove it, is there? I originally thought that all affected systems
>> would now be EOL, but as Christian pointed out, the z9 BC is not EOL
>> yet, so I'd say we should at least wait for that point in time before
>> removing it (I haven't found any public information about extended z/VM
>> support though, so no clue whether we should really take that into account).
>>  Thomas
> It's the last remaining alloc hack we have in QEMU :) That's why I am
> asking the question.

Hmm, maybe we could remove it for QEMU v3.0 ? ;-)


reply via email to

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