Re: [PATCH V1 3/6] xen/virtio: Add option to restrict memory access under Xen

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 26.04.22 10:41, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:16:16AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > Christoph suggested (rather firmly) this would be the way to go.
> Yeah, I saw it but I don't think it is the right way to go.
>
> What happens the next time a guest needs to query the platform
> underneath? Misuse these interfaces again?
>
> Because people will see the Xen use and say, hey, look, I will use this
> for my funky HV too.
>
> Even worse: what happens if Xen decides to implement SEV/TDX? Then
> you're in for a world of fun.
As the suggestion was to add another flag this wouldn't be a problem IMO.

But I agree that coco might be not the best way to go (as I wrote already).

> Now, if we want to *extend* the interfaces to have something as generic
> as, say, platform_has() and that should be the way for generic kernel
> code running in the guest to query the platform capabilities, then sure,
> by all means.
I agree.

> > This is needed on guest side at a rather hypervisor independent place.
> >
> > So a capability of some sort seems appropriate.
> >
> > Another suggestion of mine was to have a callback (or flag) in
> > struct x86_hyper_runtime for that purpose.
> This becomes an issue if the HV is not x86 - then you need a different
> method of querying it, which then underneath will call the arch-specific
> interface.
>
> I don't know how much of querying guests need to do and how they've been
> doing that so far. Depending on the requirements, we probably should
> think about a clean design from the get-go instead of homegrown things.
Yes.

platform_has() doesn't seem too bad IMO.

I will write a patch for starting the discussion.


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature