From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mihai =?UTF-8?Q?Don=C8=9Bu?= <mdontu@bitdefender.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/18] VM introspection
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:32:10 +0200
Message-ID: <1514989930.2751.33.camel@bitdefender.com>
References: <20171218190642.7790-1-alazar@bitdefender.com>
         <310d60aa-9979-cb73-058d-831ca6b98dfa@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?UTF-8?Q?Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@gmail.com>,
        Adalber =?UTF-8?Q?Laz=C4=83r?= <alazar@bitdefender.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx01.bbu.dsd.mx.bitdefender.com ([91.199.104.161]:48770 "EHLO
        mx01.bbu.dsd.mx.bitdefender.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751413AbeACOcN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:32:13 -0500
Received: from smtp01.buh.bitdefender.com (unknown [10.17.80.75])
        by mx-sr.buh.bitdefender.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C6D7FC03
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed,  3 Jan 2018 16:32:10 +0200 (EET)
In-Reply-To: <310d60aa-9979-cb73-058d-831ca6b98dfa@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 11:34 +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 12/19/2017 03:06 AM, Adalber Lazăr wrote:
> > From: Adalbert Lazar <alazar@bitdefender.com>
> > 
> > This patch series proposes a VM introspection subsystem for KVM (KVMI).
> > 
> > The previous RFC can be read here: https://marc.info/?l=kvm&m=150514457912721
> > 
> > These patches were tested on kvm/master,
> > commit 43aabca38aa9668eee3c3c1206207034614c0901 (Merge tag 'kvm-arm-fixes-for-v4.15-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm into HEAD).
> > 
> > In this iteration we refactored the code based on the feedback received
> > from Paolo and others.
> 
> I am thinking if we can define some check points in KVM where
> BPF programs are allowed to attach, then employ the policies
> in BPFs instead...

That would be a nice feature to have. For example, we could use it to
pre-filter the events (eg. drop EPT #PF events generated by A/D bit
updates). Also, sure, given how BPF has evolved in Linux these past few
years (see JIT) we could upload some pretty complex introspection
logic.

Regards,

-- 
Mihai Donțu