Re: [PATCH v8 13/15] xen: make grant resource limits per domain

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

On 20/09/17 17:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.09.17 at 14:44, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>> On 20/09/17 13:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.09.17 at 13:10, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 20/09/17 12:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20.09.17 at 08:34, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/xen/common/compat/grant_table.c
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/common/compat/grant_table.c
>>>>>> @@ -1777,13 +1784,15 @@ active_alloc_failed:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  static long
>>>>>>  gnttab_setup_table(
>>>>>> -    XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(gnttab_setup_table_t) uop, unsigned int count)
>>>>>> +    XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(gnttab_setup_table_t) uop, unsigned int count,
>>>>>> +    unsigned int limit_max)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>      struct vcpu *curr = current;
>>>>>>      struct gnttab_setup_table op;
>>>>>>      struct domain *d = NULL;
>>>>>>      struct grant_table *gt;
>>>>>>      unsigned int i;
>>>>>> +    long ret = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't int suffice here?
>>>>
>>>> I just followed the return type of the function. I think this way is
>>>> cleaner, but in case you like int better I can change it.
>>>
>>> I sort of expected this reply, but that's not in line with what you
>>> did in gnttab_get_status_frames() then. I think we will want to
>>> eventually change all function return types to int where the wider
>>> type isn't needed.
>>
>> Okay. Should I include a patch doing that in this series or would you
>> prefer this cleanup being delayed to 4.11?
> 
> This should be delayed imo - we're past the date where new
> non-bug-fix patches should be accepted.
> 
>>>>> Additionally to take the input values without applying some
>>>>> upper cap - while we have XSA-77, we still shouldn't introduce
>>>>> new issues making disaggregation more unsafe. Perhaps the
>>>>> global limits could serve as a cap here?
>>
>> Thinking more about it: what can happen in worst case when no cap
>> is being enforced?
>>
>> A domain with the privilege to create another domain with arbitrary
>> amounts of memory (we have no cap here) might go crazy and give the
>> created domain an arbitrary amount of grant frames or maptrack
>> frames. So what is the difference whether the memory is spent directly
>> for the domain or via grant frames? In both cases there will be no
>> memory left for other purposes. I can't see how this would be worse
>> than allocating the same amount of memory directly for the new domain.
> 
> Oh, memory exhaustion wasn't my primary worry, as that's at
> least immediately visible. I was rather thinking about long lasting
> loop or misbehavior because of arithmetic overflowing somewhere.

Okay, this makes a static cap configurable via boot parameters an
appropriate solution.

> 
>>>> I thought about a cap and TBH I'm not sure which would be sane to
>>>> apply. The global limits seem wrong, especially looking at patch 14:
>>>> those limits will be for dom0 only then. And dom0 won't need many
>>>> grant frames in the normal case...
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about this Dom0 aspect too over lunch. What
>>> about allowing the hardware domain to set its limit (only upwards
>>> of course) in setup_table(), without any upper bound enforced?
>>> This would free up the globals to be used as system wide limits
>>> again.
>>
>> This would be possible, of course.
>>
>> The question is whether the need to re-allocate the frame pointer arrays
>> is it worth.
> 
> Input by others would be helpful...

I think I'll go with additional cap boot parameters, so I don't think
we need dom0 to modify its own limits.

> 
>>>> So I could make up a cap in form of either a configurable constant
>>>> (CONFIG_* or boot parameter?) or as a fraction of domain memory. Any
>>>> preferences here?
>>>
>>> A config constant as well as a fraction of domain memory might lock
>>> out special purpose guests. Which would leave command line options
>>> - as per above perhaps the ones we already have.
>>
>> In case we really need the cap parameters I'd prefer distinct ones from
>> the dom0 initial values.
> 
> I agree - reusing what we have would be an option primarily
> when we don't need anything for Dom0. But if we need two
> sets of options, perhaps keeping the current ones for global
> limits and introducing new sub-options to "dom0=" would
> perhaps be better.

I agree.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel