On 16/10/2017 02:08, Yi Zhang wrote: >> And the introspection facility by Mihai uses a completely >> different API for the introspector, based on sockets rather than ioctls. >> So I'm not sure this is the right API at all. > > Currently, We only block the write access, As far as I know an example, > we now using it in a security daemon: Understood. However, I think QEMU is the wrong place to set this up. If the kernel wants to protect _itself_, it should use a hypercall. If an introspector appliance wants to protect the guest kernel, it should use the socket that connects it to the hypervisor. Paolo > Consider It has a server which launching in the host user-space, and a > client launching in the guest kernel. Yes, they are communicate with > sockets. The guest kernel wanna protect a special area to prevent all > the process including the kernel itself modify this area. the client > could send the guest physical address via the security socket to server > side, and server would update these protection into KVM. Thus, all the > write access in a guest specific area will be blocked. > > Now the implementation only on the second half(maybe third ^_^) of this > example: 'How kvm set the write-protect into a specific GFN?' > > Maybe a user space tools which use ioctl let kvm mmu update the > write-protection is a better choice. >
