Re: [PATCH V3 11/11] vhost: allow userspace to create workers

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 01:17:26PM -0500, michael.christie@oracle.com wrote:
> On 10/22/21 11:12 AM, michael.christie@oracle.com wrote:
> > On 10/22/21 5:47 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> >>> index c998860d7bbc..e5c0669430e5 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/vhost.h
> >>> @@ -70,6 +70,17 @@
> >>>  #define VHOST_VRING_BIG_ENDIAN 1
> >>>  #define VHOST_SET_VRING_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x13, struct vhost_vring_state)
> >>>  #define VHOST_GET_VRING_ENDIAN _IOW(VHOST_VIRTIO, 0x14, struct vhost_vring_state)
> >>> +/* By default, a device gets one vhost_worker created during VHOST_SET_OWNER
> >>> + * that its virtqueues share. This allows userspace to create a vhost_worker
> >>> + * and map a virtqueue to it or map a virtqueue to an existing worker.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * If pid > 0 and it matches an existing vhost_worker thread it will be bound
> >>> + * to the vq. If pid is VHOST_VRING_NEW_WORKER, then a new worker will be
> >>> + * created and bound to the vq.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This must be called after VHOST_SET_OWNER and before the vq is active.
> >>> + */
> >>
> >> A couple of things here:
> >> it's probably a good idea not to make it match pid exactly,
> >> if for no other reason than I'm not sure we want to
> >> commit this being a pid. Let's just call it an id?
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> >> And maybe byteswap it or xor with some value
> >> just to make sure userspace does not begin abusing it anyway.
> >>
> >> Also, interaction with pid namespace is unclear to me.
> >> Can you document what happens here?
> > 
> > This current patchset only allows the vhost_dev owner to
> > create/bind workers for devices it owns, so namespace don't come
> 
> I made a mistake here. The patches do restrict VHOST_SET_VRING_WORKER
> to the same owner like I wrote. However, it looks like we could have 2
> threads with the same mm pointer so vhost_dev_check_owner returns true,
> but they could be in different namespaces.
> 
> Even though we are not going to pass the pid_t between user/kernel
> space, should I add a pid namespace check when I repost the patches?

Um it's part of the ioctl. How you are not going to pass it around?

So if we do worry about this, I would just make it a 64 bit integer,
rename it "id" and increment each time a thread is created.
 
> 
> > into play. If a thread from another namespace tried to create/bind
> > a worker we would hit the owner checks in vhost_dev_ioctl which is
> > done before vhost_vring_ioctl normally (for vdpa we hit the use_worker
> > check and fail there).
> > 
> > However, with the kernel worker API changes the worker threads will
> > now be in the vhost dev owner's namespace and not the kthreadd/default
> > one, so in the future we are covered if we want to do something more
> > advanced. For example, I've seen people working on an API to export the
> > worker pids:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210507154332.hiblsd6ot5wzwkdj@steredhat/T/
> > 
> > and in the future for interfaces that export that info we could restrict
> > access to root or users from the same namespace or I guess add interfaces
> > to allow different namespaces to see the workers and share them.
> > 
> > 
> >> No need to fix funky things like moving the fd between
> >> pid namespaces while also creating/destroying workers, but let's
> >> document it's not supported.
> > 
> > Ok. I'll add a comment.
> > 

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization