From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com> Cc: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>, "Prasad J Pandit" <pjp@fedoraproject.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>, "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>, "Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/10] accel: Use qemu_security_policy_taint(), mark KVM and Xen as safe Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:47:43 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87k0i6a0z4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YTnj2M+lygKzdsgO@redhat.com> ("Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Thu, 9 Sep 2021 11:37:12 +0100") It's been a while... Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:20:16AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> Add the AccelClass::secure_policy_supported field to classify >> safe (within security boundary) vs unsafe accelerators. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> >> --- >> include/qemu/accel.h | 5 +++++ >> accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 1 + >> accel/xen/xen-all.c | 1 + >> softmmu/vl.c | 3 +++ >> 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/qemu/accel.h b/include/qemu/accel.h >> index 4f4c283f6fc..895e30be0de 100644 >> --- a/include/qemu/accel.h >> +++ b/include/qemu/accel.h >> @@ -44,6 +44,11 @@ typedef struct AccelClass { >> hwaddr start_addr, hwaddr size); >> #endif >> bool *allowed; >> + /* >> + * Whether the accelerator is withing QEMU security policy boundary. >> + * See: https://www.qemu.org/contribute/security-process/ >> + */ >> + bool secure_policy_supported; > > The security handling policy is a high level concept that is > open to variation over time and also by downstream distro > vendors. Moreover, the concept of "tainting" isn't limited to "because security". > At a code level we should be dealing in a more fundamental > concept. At an accelerator level we should really jsut > declare whether or not the accelerator impl is considered > to be secure against malicious guest code. > > eg > > /* Whether this accelerator is secure against execution > * of malciious guest machine code */ > bool secure; What I'd like to see is a separation of "assertions", like "not meant to serve as security boundary", and policy. Yes, this is vague. Take it as food for thought. >> /* >> * Array of global properties that would be applied when specific >> * accelerator is chosen. It works like MachineClass.compat_props >> diff --git a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> index 0125c17edb8..eb6b9e44df2 100644 >> --- a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> +++ b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> @@ -3623,6 +3623,7 @@ static void kvm_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> ac->init_machine = kvm_init; >> ac->has_memory = kvm_accel_has_memory; >> ac->allowed = &kvm_allowed; >> + ac->secure_policy_supported = true; >> >> object_class_property_add(oc, "kernel-irqchip", "on|off|split", >> NULL, kvm_set_kernel_irqchip, >> diff --git a/accel/xen/xen-all.c b/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> index 69aa7d018b2..57867af5faf 100644 >> --- a/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> +++ b/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void xen_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> ac->setup_post = xen_setup_post; >> ac->allowed = &xen_allowed; >> ac->compat_props = g_ptr_array_new(); >> + ac->secure_policy_supported = true; >> >> compat_props_add(ac->compat_props, compat, G_N_ELEMENTS(compat)); >> >> diff --git a/softmmu/vl.c b/softmmu/vl.c >> index 92c05ac97ee..e4f94e159c3 100644 >> --- a/softmmu/vl.c >> +++ b/softmmu/vl.c >> @@ -2388,6 +2388,9 @@ static int do_configure_accelerator(void *opaque, QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp) >> return 0; >> } >> >> + qemu_security_policy_taint(!ac->secure_policy_supported, >> + "%s accelerator", acc); > > We need this information to be introspectable, becuase stuff printed > to stderr is essentially opaque to libvirt and mgmt apps above. > > We don't have a convenient "query-accel" command but I think this > could possibly fit into 'query-target'. ie the TargetInfo struct > gain a field: > > > ## > # @TargetInfo: > # > # Information describing the QEMU target. > # > # @arch: the target architecture > # @secure: Whether the currently active accelerator for this target > # is secure against execution of malicous guest code > # > # Since: 1.2 > ## > { 'struct': 'TargetInfo', > 'data': { 'arch': 'SysEmuTarget', > 'secure': 'bool'} } My preferred means of introspection is QAPI schema introspection. For QMP, that's query-qmp-schema. For CLI, it doesn't exist, yet. If it did, then it would tell us that (QAPIfied) -accel takes an argument @accel of a certain enumeration type. We could then tack suitable feature flags to the enumeration type's values. If we make the feature flags "special", i.e. known to QAPI, we can then tie them to policy, like special feature flag 'deprecated' is tied to policy configured with -compat deprecated-{input,output}=... Alternatively, leave policy to the management application. QAPI schema feature flags plus policy are is not a *complete* solution, just like feature flag 'deprecated' and -compat are not a complete solution for handling use of deprecated interfaces: we can and do deprecate usage that isn't tied to a syntactic element in the QAPI schema. Example: commit a9b305ba291 deprecated use of socket chardev option wait together with server=true. It is, however, a solution for a sizable part of the problem with useful properties: * In QEMU, the code is generic (handling of feature flags, policy), and the non-generic stuff is declarative (feature flags in the QAPI schema). * No new introspection mechanism: feature flags already exist in QAPI schema introspection.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com> Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, "Thomas Huth" <thuth@redhat.com>, "Prasad J Pandit" <pjp@fedoraproject.org>, qemu-block@nongnu.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>, "Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com>, "Eduardo Habkost" <ehabkost@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/10] accel: Use qemu_security_policy_taint(), mark KVM and Xen as safe Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:47:43 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87k0i6a0z4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YTnj2M+lygKzdsgO@redhat.com> ("Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9=22's?= message of "Thu, 9 Sep 2021 11:37:12 +0100") It's been a while... Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:20:16AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> Add the AccelClass::secure_policy_supported field to classify >> safe (within security boundary) vs unsafe accelerators. >> >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> >> --- >> include/qemu/accel.h | 5 +++++ >> accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 1 + >> accel/xen/xen-all.c | 1 + >> softmmu/vl.c | 3 +++ >> 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/qemu/accel.h b/include/qemu/accel.h >> index 4f4c283f6fc..895e30be0de 100644 >> --- a/include/qemu/accel.h >> +++ b/include/qemu/accel.h >> @@ -44,6 +44,11 @@ typedef struct AccelClass { >> hwaddr start_addr, hwaddr size); >> #endif >> bool *allowed; >> + /* >> + * Whether the accelerator is withing QEMU security policy boundary. >> + * See: https://www.qemu.org/contribute/security-process/ >> + */ >> + bool secure_policy_supported; > > The security handling policy is a high level concept that is > open to variation over time and also by downstream distro > vendors. Moreover, the concept of "tainting" isn't limited to "because security". > At a code level we should be dealing in a more fundamental > concept. At an accelerator level we should really jsut > declare whether or not the accelerator impl is considered > to be secure against malicious guest code. > > eg > > /* Whether this accelerator is secure against execution > * of malciious guest machine code */ > bool secure; What I'd like to see is a separation of "assertions", like "not meant to serve as security boundary", and policy. Yes, this is vague. Take it as food for thought. >> /* >> * Array of global properties that would be applied when specific >> * accelerator is chosen. It works like MachineClass.compat_props >> diff --git a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> index 0125c17edb8..eb6b9e44df2 100644 >> --- a/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> +++ b/accel/kvm/kvm-all.c >> @@ -3623,6 +3623,7 @@ static void kvm_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> ac->init_machine = kvm_init; >> ac->has_memory = kvm_accel_has_memory; >> ac->allowed = &kvm_allowed; >> + ac->secure_policy_supported = true; >> >> object_class_property_add(oc, "kernel-irqchip", "on|off|split", >> NULL, kvm_set_kernel_irqchip, >> diff --git a/accel/xen/xen-all.c b/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> index 69aa7d018b2..57867af5faf 100644 >> --- a/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> +++ b/accel/xen/xen-all.c >> @@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ static void xen_accel_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> ac->setup_post = xen_setup_post; >> ac->allowed = &xen_allowed; >> ac->compat_props = g_ptr_array_new(); >> + ac->secure_policy_supported = true; >> >> compat_props_add(ac->compat_props, compat, G_N_ELEMENTS(compat)); >> >> diff --git a/softmmu/vl.c b/softmmu/vl.c >> index 92c05ac97ee..e4f94e159c3 100644 >> --- a/softmmu/vl.c >> +++ b/softmmu/vl.c >> @@ -2388,6 +2388,9 @@ static int do_configure_accelerator(void *opaque, QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp) >> return 0; >> } >> >> + qemu_security_policy_taint(!ac->secure_policy_supported, >> + "%s accelerator", acc); > > We need this information to be introspectable, becuase stuff printed > to stderr is essentially opaque to libvirt and mgmt apps above. > > We don't have a convenient "query-accel" command but I think this > could possibly fit into 'query-target'. ie the TargetInfo struct > gain a field: > > > ## > # @TargetInfo: > # > # Information describing the QEMU target. > # > # @arch: the target architecture > # @secure: Whether the currently active accelerator for this target > # is secure against execution of malicous guest code > # > # Since: 1.2 > ## > { 'struct': 'TargetInfo', > 'data': { 'arch': 'SysEmuTarget', > 'secure': 'bool'} } My preferred means of introspection is QAPI schema introspection. For QMP, that's query-qmp-schema. For CLI, it doesn't exist, yet. If it did, then it would tell us that (QAPIfied) -accel takes an argument @accel of a certain enumeration type. We could then tack suitable feature flags to the enumeration type's values. If we make the feature flags "special", i.e. known to QAPI, we can then tie them to policy, like special feature flag 'deprecated' is tied to policy configured with -compat deprecated-{input,output}=... Alternatively, leave policy to the management application. QAPI schema feature flags plus policy are is not a *complete* solution, just like feature flag 'deprecated' and -compat are not a complete solution for handling use of deprecated interfaces: we can and do deprecate usage that isn't tied to a syntactic element in the QAPI schema. Example: commit a9b305ba291 deprecated use of socket chardev option wait together with server=true. It is, however, a solution for a sizable part of the problem with useful properties: * In QEMU, the code is generic (handling of feature flags, policy), and the non-generic stuff is declarative (feature flags in the QAPI schema). * No new introspection mechanism: feature flags already exist in QAPI schema introspection.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-21 14:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-08 23:20 [RFC PATCH 00/10] security: Introduce qemu_security_policy_taint() API Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 01/10] sysemu: " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 10:01 ` Paolo Bonzini 2021-09-09 18:45 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-09 18:45 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 02/10] accel: Use qemu_security_policy_taint(), mark KVM and Xen as safe Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 10:37 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 10:37 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-10-21 14:47 ` Markus Armbruster [this message] 2021-10-21 14:47 ` Markus Armbruster 2021-09-09 18:46 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-09 18:46 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 03/10] block: Use qemu_security_policy_taint() API Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 9:53 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 9:53 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 10:40 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 10:40 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 10:55 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 19:05 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-09 19:05 ` Eric Blake 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 04/10] block/vvfat: Mark the driver as unsafe Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 05/10] block/null: Mark 'read-zeroes=off' option " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 06/10] qdev: Use qemu_security_policy_taint() API Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 11:03 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 11:03 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 07/10] hw/display: Mark ATI and Artist devices as unsafe Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 08/10] hw/misc: Mark testdev " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 09/10] hw/net: Mark Tulip device " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH 10/10] hw/sd: Mark sdhci-pci " Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-08 23:20 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé 2021-09-09 10:28 ` [RFC PATCH 00/10] security: Introduce qemu_security_policy_taint() API Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 10:28 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-14 13:30 ` P J P 2021-09-14 13:30 ` P J P 2021-09-28 11:39 ` P J P 2021-09-28 11:39 ` P J P 2021-09-30 10:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-30 10:30 ` Daniel P. Berrangé 2021-09-09 12:03 ` Alexander Bulekov 2021-09-09 12:03 ` Alexander Bulekov
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=87k0i6a0z4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org \ --to=armbru@redhat.com \ --cc=berrange@redhat.com \ --cc=eblake@redhat.com \ --cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \ --cc=f4bug@amsat.org \ --cc=mst@redhat.com \ --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \ --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \ --cc=philmd@redhat.com \ --cc=pjp@fedoraproject.org \ --cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \ --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \ --cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \ --cc=thuth@redhat.com \ --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.