From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C1AC433E0 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5B72311F for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:30:18 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DA5B72311F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=de.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33538 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l04Zf-0001Nt-FZ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:30:17 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l04VM-0005xD-Bm; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:44 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:31052 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l04VK-0002jS-44; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:44 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10EF26mI053878; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=+fvFQhBdKPZ2qFw9YfpoWP68jBXakErCj26qU4eV+IQ=; b=kEUWrJs3MwvueOcHAL80E/c74fkVL+pezJf8XpbLNQ+LKMRExh+rRj9wFVdeqLSCjrRC 3NwpUB4dV7Rj2hN8fb3+pgxEv6eqniV/oKfG+xQZRMNDfWG9Qp3DN7Vzrf2v+f5cqbXy ZtQFsoWI+H1u+23OihLJj1vdfLQAldope/7tr/LQvpz8k69pB4Omioy4z62lLZx+cNnU yUPtq6WtMioGhhYwnMEnjp2bNYX5pLjq/G98qoZC/vYw4+684NnI+ENLDiGsKvCtJ7fS nyrZMsHQz5+47DAFFO8qtz/2ckp3++1ShwEy+6GoXQ67wOmKp9134WH9PJ4WlVbb/sv5 1Q== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 362qqxhx3y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:30 -0500 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 10EF3TlN064048; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:29 -0500 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 362qqxhx2j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 10:25:29 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 10EFCLXM024768; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 35ydrde5wd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:26 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 10EFPNBH47055252 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:23 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C524C04E; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF924C046; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc7455500831.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.19.194]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:25:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [for-6.0 v5 11/13] spapr: PEF: prevent migration To: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Boris Fiuczynski , Bjoern Walk , Viktor Mihajlovski References: <20210113124226.GH2938@work-vm> <6e02e8d5-af4b-624b-1a12-d03b9d554a41@de.ibm.com> <20210114103643.GD2905@work-vm> <20210114120531.3c7f350e.cohuck@redhat.com> <20210114114533.GF2905@work-vm> <20210114122048.GG1643043@redhat.com> <20210114150422.5f74ca41.cohuck@redhat.com> <20210114141535.GJ1643043@redhat.com> From: Christian Borntraeger Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 16:25:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210114141535.GJ1643043@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.343, 18.0.737 definitions=2021-01-14_05:2021-01-14, 2021-01-14 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101140085 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.158.5; envelope-from=borntraeger@de.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-Spam_score_int: -28 X-Spam_score: -2.9 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.237, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pair@us.ibm.com, Cornelia Huck , brijesh.singh@amd.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Ram Pai , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Halil Pasic , rth@twiddle.net, thuth@redhat.com, Eduardo Habkost , Richard Henderson , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Greg Kurz , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, David Gibson , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 14.01.21 15:15, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 03:09:01PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 14.01.21 15:04, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:20:48 +0000 >>> Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:50:12PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14.01.21 12:45, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>>>> * Cornelia Huck (cohuck@redhat.com) wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 11:52:11 +0100 >>>>>>> Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14.01.21 11:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>>>>>>> * Christian Borntraeger (borntraeger@de.ibm.com) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 13.01.21 13:42, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> * Cornelia Huck (cohuck@redhat.com) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 12:41:25 -0800 >>>>>>>>>>>> Ram Pai wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:56:14AM +0100, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:40:26 -0800 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ram Pai wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main difference between my proposal and the other proposal is... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my proposal the guest makes the compatibility decision and acts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. In the other proposal QEMU makes the compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision and acts accordingly. I argue that QEMU cannot make a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility decision, because it wont know in advance, if the guest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will or will-not switch-to-secure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a point there when you say that QEMU does not know in advance, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the guest will or will-not switch-to-secure. I made that argument >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM (iommu_platform) myself. My idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was to flip that property on demand when the conversion occurs. David >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained to me that this is not possible for ppc, and that having the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "securable-guest-memory" property (or whatever the name will be) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified is a strong indication, that the VM is intended to be used as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a secure VM (thus it is OK to hurt the case where the guest does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to transition). That argument applies here as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As suggested by Cornelia Huck, what if QEMU disabled the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "securable-guest-memory" property if 'must-support-migrate' is enabled? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Offcourse; this has to be done with a big fat warning stating >>>>>>>>>>>>> "secure-guest-memory" feature is disabled on the machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing so, will continue to support guest that do not try to transition. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Guest that try to transition will fail and terminate themselves. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just to recap the s390x situation: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - We currently offer a cpu feature that indicates secure execution to >>>>>>>>>>>> be available to the guest if the host supports it. >>>>>>>>>>>> - When we introduce the secure object, we still need to support >>>>>>>>>>>> previous configurations and continue to offer the cpu feature, even >>>>>>>>>>>> if the secure object is not specified. >>>>>>>>>>>> - As migration is currently not supported for secured guests, we add a >>>>>>>>>>>> blocker once the guest actually transitions. That means that >>>>>>>>>>>> transition fails if --only-migratable was specified on the command >>>>>>>>>>>> line. (Guests not transitioning will obviously not notice anything.) >>>>>>>>>>>> - With the secure object, we will already fail starting QEMU if >>>>>>>>>>>> --only-migratable was specified. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is now that we don't even offer the cpu feature if >>>>>>>>>>>> --only-migratable has been specified. For a guest that does not want to >>>>>>>>>>>> transition to secure mode, nothing changes; a guest that wants to >>>>>>>>>>>> transition to secure mode will notice that the feature is not available >>>>>>>>>>>> and fail appropriately (or ultimately, when the ultravisor call fails). >>>>>>>>>>>> We'd still fail starting QEMU for the secure object + --only-migratable >>>>>>>>>>>> combination. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does that make sense? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It's a little unusual; I don't think we have any other cases where >>>>>>>>>>> --only-migratable changes the behaviour; I think it normally only stops >>>>>>>>>>> you doing something that would have made it unmigratable or causes >>>>>>>>>>> an operation that would make it unmigratable to fail. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would like to NOT block this feature with --only-migrateable. A guest >>>>>>>>>> can startup unprotected (and then is is migrateable). the migration blocker >>>>>>>>>> is really a dynamic aspect during runtime. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the point of --only-migratable is to turn things that would have >>>>>>>>> blocked migration into failures, so that a VM started with >>>>>>>>> --only-migratable is *always* migratable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmmm, fair enough. How do we do this with host-model? The constructed model >>>>>>>> would contain unpack, but then it will fail to startup? Or do we silently >>>>>>>> drop unpack in that case? Both variants do not feel completely right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Failing if you explicitly specified unpacked feels right, but failing >>>>>>> if you just used the host model feels odd. Removing unpack also is a >>>>>>> bit odd, but I think the better option if we want to do anything about >>>>>>> it at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> 'host-model' feels a bit special; but breaking the rule that >>>>>> only-migratable doesn't change behaviour is weird >>>>>> Can you do host,-unpack to make that work explicitly? >>>>> >>>>> I guess that should work. But it means that we need to add logic in libvirt >>>>> to disable unpack for host-passthru and host-model. Next problem is then, >>>>> that a future version might implement migration of such guests, which means >>>>> that libvirt must then stop fencing unpack. >>>> >>>> The "host-model" is supposed to always be migratable, so we should >>>> fence the feature there. >>>> >>>> host-passthrough is "undefined" whether it is migratable - it may or may >>>> not work, no guarantees made by libvirt. >>>> >>>> Ultimately I think the problem is that there ought to be an explicit >>>> config to enable the feature for s390, as there is for SEV, and will >>>> also presumably be needed for ppc. >>> >>> Yes, an explicit config is what we want; unfortunately, we have to deal >>> with existing setups as well... >>> >>> The options I see are >>> - leave things for existing setups as they are now (i.e. might become >>> unmigratable when the guest transitions), and make sure we're doing >>> the right thing with the new object >>> - always make the unpack feature conflict with migration requirements; >>> this is a guest-visible change >>> >>> The first option might be less hairy, all considered? >> >> What about a libvirt change that removes the unpack from the host-model as >> soon as only-migrateable is used. When that is in place, QEMU can reject >> the combination of only-migrateable + unpack. > > I think libvirt needs to just unconditionally remove unpack from host-model > regardless, and require an explicit opt in. We can do that in libvirt > without compat problems, because we track the expansion of "host-model" > for existing running guests. This is true for running guests, but not for shutdown and restart. I would really like to avoid bad (and hard to debug) surprises that a guest boots fine with libvirt version x and then fail with x+1. So at the beginning I am fine with libvirt removing "unpack" from the default host model expansion if the --only-migrateable parameter is used. Now I look into libvirt and I cannot actually find code that uses this parameter. Are there some patches posted somewhere? > > QEMU could introduce a deprecation warning right now, and then turn it into > an error after the deprecation cycle is complete.