From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55377)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RukWd-00041s-Ju
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:52:05 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RukWY-0005gT-C7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:51:59 -0500
Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:36664)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1RukWY-0005gN-7I
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:51:54 -0500
Received: by pbaa11 with SMTP id a11so7866467pba.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4F311E64.10604@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:51:48 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4F2AB552.2070909@redhat.com>	<CAG7+5M0s_F93G3dPrRQaFMVv_hPzpd-wYEPApJUDGhh3vJuy-A@mail.gmail.com>	<4F2C6517.3040203@codemonkey.ws>	<4F302E0D.20302@freescale.com>
	<4F3118EA.7040302@codemonkey.ws> <4F311BBD.5050600@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F311BBD.5050600@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Next gen kvm api
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Eric Northup <digitaleric@google.com>, KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 02/07/2012 06:40 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 02:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>
>>> It's a potential source of exploits
>>> (from bugs in KVM or in hardware). I can see people wanting to be
>>> selective with access because of that.
>>
>> As is true of the rest of the kernel.
>>
>> If you want finer grain access control, that's exactly why we have things like
>> LSM and SELinux. You can add the appropriate LSM hooks into the KVM
>> infrastructure and setup default SELinux policies appropriately.
>
> LSMs protect objects, not syscalls. There isn't an object to protect here
> (except the fake /dev/kvm object).

A VM can be an object.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> In theory, kvm is exactly the same as other syscalls, but in practice, it is
> used by only very few user programs, so there may be many unexercised paths.
>