Daniel P. Berrangé, Sep 03, 2024 at 14:24: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 02:16:58PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 13:29:28 +0200, Anthony Harivel wrote: > > > Daniel P. Berrangé, Sep 03, 2024 at 12:08: > > > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:09:42PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 17:59:47 +0200, Anthony Harivel wrote: > > > > > > Add the support in libvirt to activate the RAPL feature in QEMU. > > > > > I suppose that the 'rapl-helper-socket' is a shared (multiple qemu's use > > > > > it) resource set up beforehand by the admin. Right? > > > > > > > > The qemu-pr-helper could be run as a single instnce, or it could be > > > > run per-QEMU instance. The latter would give us better security > > > > isolation, for what is a privileged daemon. On the other hand, I > > > > wonder about the CPU overhead of having 100's of copies of the > > > > process running on a host. > > > > So when I was originally skimming trhough the docs I didn't properly > > understand that the reason for the helper daemon is that there was a > > security issue with accessing the measurement counters and thought it > > was strictly for performance reasons. > > Yep, this is only for security reasons. > TL;DR: "A malicious user application may use RAPL to infer confidential information of another unprivileged application running on the same or a different CPU core by observing the power-related behavior of the victim application." The answer from Intel was to put the interface being privileged permission. Link: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/advisory-guidance/running-average-power-limit-energy-reporting.html > > > If it runs on a single instance, then the socket needs to be chmod/chown > > > to something like qemu / libvirt group with access only to root and > > > group. > > > > Another alternative for a shared instance to be used by multiple qemu > > instances is that libvirt can open the socket and pass it to qemu, which > > avoids the potential issue at-least with DAC security labels as the > > socket can be owned by root:root with mode 600. > > > > I'm not sure how the selinux policy for that daemon looks though. > > I don't believe any policy exists yet, since this is a brand new > service. > > > > Running one helper instance per-QEMU instance would mean that every > > > instance read 1 MSR / Package every second. The socket is left open > > > (thanks to Daniel suggestion in QEMU review). The impact would be quite > > > low I guess on the housekeeping CPU. > > > > > > When I designed the daemon with Paolo, the first solution was the main > > > idea but I'm open to any solution that leads to a better adoption of the > > > feature. > > > > Libvirt can obviously manage also a per VM instance, which should be > > straightforward, but not as simple as this patch. This can theoretically > > also be added later, e.g. by adding a 'managed' property enabling the > > libvirt-managed daemon. > > A parallel would be the qemu-pr-helper which this new service was initially > derived from in terms of archicture. It also runs privileged for security > reasons and can be single shared instance, or per-VM instance. > Which actually leads to the question to the following: Why do I "simply" not do like the qemu-pr-helper in libvirt ? see qemuProcessStartManagedPRDaemon() in src/qemu/qemu_process.c +2808 > With 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 :|
