Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy

From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com,
	frankja@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/11] KVM: s390: pv: implement lazy destroy
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 18:31:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210518183131.1e0cf801@ibm-vm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a38192d5-0868-8e07-0a34-c1615e1997fc@redhat.com>

On Tue, 18 May 2021 18:22:42 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 18.05.21 18:19, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 May 2021 18:04:11 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:36:24 +0200
> >> Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>  
> >>> On Tue, 18 May 2021 17:05:37 +0200
> >>> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 22:07:47 +0200
> >>>> Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> wrote:  
> >>  
> >>>>> This means that the same address space can have memory
> >>>>> belonging to more than one protected guest, although only one
> >>>>> will be running, the others will in fact not even have any
> >>>>> CPUs.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Are those set-aside-but-not-yet-cleaned-up pages still possibly
> >>>> accessible in any way? I would assume that they only belong to
> >>>> the  
> >>>
> >>> in case of reboot: yes, they are still in the address space of the
> >>> guest, and can be swapped if needed
> >>>      
> >>>> 'zombie' guests, and any new or rebooted guest is a new entity
> >>>> that needs to get new pages?  
> >>>
> >>> the rebooted guest (normal or secure) will re-use the same pages
> >>> of the old guest (before or after cleanup, which is the reason of
> >>> patches 3 and 4)  
> >>
> >> Took a look at those patches, makes sense.
> >>  
> >>>
> >>> the KVM guest is not affected in case of reboot, so the userspace
> >>> address space is not touched.  
> >>
> >> 'guest' is a bit ambiguous here -- do you mean the vm here, and the
> >> actual guest above?
> >>  
> > 
> > yes this is tricky, because there is the guest OS, which terminates
> > or reboots, then there is the "secure configuration" entity,
> > handled by the Ultravisor, and then the KVM VM
> > 
> > when a secure guest reboots, the "secure configuration" is
> > dismantled (in this case, in a deferred way), and the KVM VM (and
> > its memory) is not directly affected
> > 
> > what happened before was that the secure configuration was
> > dismantled synchronously, and then re-created.
> > 
> > now instead, a new secure configuration is created using the same
> > KVM VM (and thus the same mm), before the old secure configuration
> > has been completely dismantled. hence the same KVM VM can have
> > multiple secure configurations associated, sharing the same address
> > space.
> > 
> > of course, only the newest one is actually running, the other ones
> > are "zombies", without CPUs.
> >   
> 
> Can a guest trigger a DoS?

I don't see how

a guest can fill its memory and then reboot, and then fill its memory
again and then reboot... but that will take time, filling the memory
will itself clean up leftover pages from previous boots.

"normal" reboot loops will be fast, because there won't be much memory
to process

I have actually tested mixed reboot/shutdown loops, and the system
behaved as you would expect when under load.