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=-11.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 A9630C433E1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:58:10 +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 702752087D for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:58:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="bXOgT+lB" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 702752087D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:33034 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kA8Ir-0005Ck-Ig for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 04:58:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34354) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kA8IK-0004mG-7n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 04:57:36 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:45978) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kA8IH-00071b-FM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 04:57:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1598259451; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AlH3sev1eaSlLwiARCIZaMt4DFNOqgGG6m0BR2RzBHU=; b=bXOgT+lB55lCjL9LvG4KcREcJXHvhGl7cNolfZ/946Oy0sTpLnFe/jNjLwqV0IDmFMpbQs TAsVmt32cbzmWxtUjGOBHLj6I7zwlAuR4fw5aIIJEP0abo+Bbh1X2BERCjgxKqrD8kaxVy C8SSdl+u8hksMcobpNVJwK+m7uDA8XE= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-579-IYlgezzpNEGNDw0gpKLfVQ-1; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 04:57:13 -0400 X-MC-Unique: IYlgezzpNEGNDw0gpKLfVQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D92581F012; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:57:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from work-vm (ovpn-114-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.59]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2544680920; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:57:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 09:57:07 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Zheng Chuan Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/10] migration/dirtyrate: Record hash results for each sampled page Message-ID: <20200824085707.GA2645@work-vm> References: <1597634433-18809-1-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com> <1597634433-18809-6-git-send-email-zhengchuan@huawei.com> <20200820173009.GM2664@work-vm> <20200820175149.GA244434@redhat.com> <20200820175512.GQ2664@work-vm> <95894cf7-ba09-9862-357a-1073a192e934@huawei.com> <20200821123014.GK348677@redhat.com> <20200821123910.GC2655@work-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dgilbert@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=dgilbert@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/24 04:38:05 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -40 X-Spam_score: -4.1 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.959, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, xiexiangyou@huawei.com, alex.chen@huawei.com, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com, fangying1@huawei.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Zheng Chuan (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote: > > > On 2020/8/21 20:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Daniel P. Berrangé (berrange@redhat.com) wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 08:22:06PM +0800, Zheng Chuan wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2020/8/21 1:55, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>>> * Daniel P. Berrangé (berrange@redhat.com) wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:30:09PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >>>>>> * Chuan Zheng (zhengchuan@huawei.com) wrote: > >>>>>>> Record hash results for each sampled page. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuan Zheng > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: YanYing Zhuang > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> migration/dirtyrate.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>>> migration/dirtyrate.h | 7 +++ > >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 151 insertions(+) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/migration/dirtyrate.c b/migration/dirtyrate.c > >>>>>>> index c4304ef..62b6f69 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/migration/dirtyrate.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/migration/dirtyrate.c > >>>>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ > >>>>>>> #include "dirtyrate.h" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CalculatingDirtyRateState CalculatingState = CAL_DIRTY_RATE_INIT; > >>>>>>> +static unsigned long int qcrypto_hash_len = QCRYPTO_HASH_LEN; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why do we need this static rather than just using the QCRYPTO_HASH_LEN ? > >>>>>> It's never going to change is it? > >>>>>> (and anyway it's just a MD5 len?) > >>>>> > >>>>> I wouldn't want to bet on that given that this is use of MD5. We might > >>>>> claim this isn't security critical, but surprises happen, and we will > >>>>> certainly be dinged on security audits for introducing new use of MD5 > >>>>> no matter what. > >>>>> > >>>>> If a cryptographic hash is required, then sha256 should be the choice > >>>>> for any new code that doesn't have back compat requirements. > >>>>> > >>>>> If a cryptographic hash is not required then how about crc32 > >>>> > >>>> It doesn't need to be cryptographic; is crc32 the fastest reasonable hash for use > >>>> in large areas? > >>>> > >>>> Dave > >>>> > >>>>> IOW, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say we need a cryptographic > >>>>> hash, but then pick the most insecure one. > >>>>> > >>>>> sha256 is slower than md5, but it is conceivable that in future we might > >>>>> gain support for something like Blake2b which is similar security level > >>>>> to SHA3, while being faster than MD5. > >>>>> > >>>>> Overall I'm pretty unethusiastic about use of MD5 being introduced and > >>>>> worse, being hardcoded as the only option. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Daniel > >>>>> -- > >>>>> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > >>>>> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > >>>>> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > >>> > >>> Hi, Daniel, Dave. > >>> > >>> I do compare MD5 and SHA256 with vm memory of 128G under mempress of 100G. > >>> > >>> 1. Calculation speed > >>> 1） MD5 takes about 500ms to sample and hash all pages by record_ramblock_hash_info(). > >>> 2) SHA256 takes about 750ms to sample all pages by record_ramblock_hash_info(). > >>> > >>> 2. CPU Consumption > >>> 1) MD5 may have instant rise up to 48% for dirtyrate thread > >>> 2) SHA256 may have instant rise up to 75% for dirtyrate thread > >>> > >>> 3. Memory Consumption > >>> SHA256 may need twice memory than MD5 due to its HASH_LEN. > >>> > >>> I am trying to consider if crc32 is more faster and takes less memory and is more safer than MD5? > >> > >> No, crc32 is absolutely *weaker* than MD5. It is NOT a cryptographic > >> hash so does not try to guarantee collision resistance. It only has > >> 2^32 possible outputs. > >> > >> MD5 does try to guarantee collision resistance, but MD5 is considered > >> broken these days, so a malicious attacker can cause collisions if they > >> are motivated enough. > >> > >> IOW if you need collision resistance that SHA256 should be used. > > > > There's no need to guard against malicious behaviour here - this is just > > a stat to guide migration. > > If CRC32 is likely to be faster than md5 I suspect it's enough. > > > > Dave > > > Hi，Dave, Daniel. > > I did test by crc32，it is much faster than MD5 and SHA256:) > > As for 128G vm it takes only about 50ms to sample and hash all pages by record_ramblock_hash_info(). > And the dirtyrate calculation is still good enough:) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > | | dirtyrate | > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > | no mempress | 4MB/s | > ------------------------------------------ > | mempress 4096 1024 | 1248MB/s | > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > | mempress 4096 4096 | 4060MB/s | > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I will take crc32 in PatchV4, is that OK from the perspective of safety? Yes, it's fine since it's only a heuristic anyway. Dave > In my opinion, it should be safe. > The crc32 is only for compare and the recorder will be free after calculation is over. > The output is just dirtyrate for user to guide migration. > > What's more, i consider increase DIRTYRATE_DEFAULT_SAMPLE_PAGES from 256 to 512 > which may takes about 75ms to sample and hash all pages by record_ramblock_hash_info(). > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Daniel > >> -- > >> |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > >> |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > >> |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK