On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:18:01PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:06:02PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > * Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:38:23PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:25:46PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 12:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 12:12:34PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > > On 03/01/2017 12:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:31:04PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 06:22:45PM +0200, Michael S. > > > > > > > > > > Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:50:38AM -0500, Stefan Berger > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I had already proposed a linked-in version before I > > > > > > > > > > > > went to the out-of-process > > > > > > > > > > > > design. Anthony's concerns back then were related to > > > > > > > > > > > > the code not being trusted > > > > > > > > > > > > and a segfault in the code could bring down all of > > > > > > > > > > > > QEMU. That we have test > > > > > > > > > > > > suites running over it didn't work as an argument. Some > > > > > > > > > > > > of the test suite are > > > > > > > > > > > > private, though. > > > > > > > > > > > Given how bad the alternative is maybe we should go back > > > > > > > > > > > to that one. > > > > > > > > > > > Same argument can be made for any device and we aren't > > > > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > > > them out of process right now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIMO it's less the in-process question (modularization > > > > > > > > > > > of QEMU has been on the agenda since years and I don't > > > > > > > > > > > think anyone is against it) it's more a code > > > > > > > > > > > control/community question. > > > > > > > > > > I rather disagree. Modularization of QEMU has seen few > > > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > > because it is generally a hard problem to solve when you > > > > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > > complex pre-existing codebase. I don't think code control > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > been a factor in this - as long as QEMU can clearly define > > > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > ABI/API between core & the modular pieces, it doesn't matter > > > > > > > > > > who owns the module. We've seen this with vhost-user which > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > essentially outsourcing network device backend impls to a > > > > > > > > > > 3rd > > > > > > > > > > party project. > > > > > > > > > And it was done precisely for community reasons. dpdk/VPP > > > > > > > > > community is > > > > > > > > > quite large and fell funded but they just can't all grok > > > > > > > > > QEMU. They > > > > > > > > > work for hardware vendors and do baremetal things. With the > > > > > > > > > split we > > > > > > > > > can focus on virtualization and they can focus on moving > > > > > > > > > packets around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QEMU's defined the vhost-user ABI/API and delegated > > > > > > > > > > impl to something else. > > > > > > > > > The vhost ABI isn't easy to maintain at all though. So I > > > > > > > > > would not > > > > > > > > > commit to that lightly without a good reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will be way more painful if the ABI is dictated by a 3rd > > > > > > > > > party > > > > > > > > > library. > > > > > > > > Who should define it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No one. Put it in same source tree with QEMU and forget ABI > > > > > > > stability > > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean put the code implementing TPM 1.2 and/or TPM 2 into the > > > > > > QEMU tree? > > > > > > These are multiple thousands of lines of code each and we'll break > > > > > > them > > > > > > apart into logical chunks and review them? > > > > > > > > > > No, lets not make that mistake again - we only just got rid of the > > > > > libcacard smartcard library code from QEMU git. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > I don't mean that as an external library. As an integral part of QEMU > > > > adhering to our coding style etc - why not? > > > > > > > > I don't know what are the other options. How is depending on an ABI > > > > with a utility with no other users and not packaged by most distros > > > > good? You are calling out to a CUSE device but who's reviewing that > > > > code? > > > > > > > > vl.c weights in a 4500 lines of code. several thousand lines is > > > > not small but not unmanageable. > > > > > > > > > That's 4500 lines of fairly generic code; not like the TPM where the > > > number > > > of people who really understand the details of it is pretty slim. > > > > > > It's better on most counts to have it as a separate process. > > > > > > Dave > > > > Separate process we start and stop automatically I don't mind. A > > separate tree with a distinct coding style where no one will ever even > > look at it? Not so much. > > That code is used elsewhere anyway,
Who uses it? Who packages it? Fedora doesn't ... > so asking them to change the coding style > isn't very nice. > Even if they change the coding style it doesn't mean you're suddenly going to > understand how a TPM works in detail and be able to review it. I did in the past but I didn't kept abreast of the recent developments. > Anyway, having it in a separate process locked down by SELinux means that even > if it does go horribly wrong it won't break qemu. > > Dave Since qemu does blocking ioctls on it and doesn't validate results too much it sure can break QEMU - anything from DOS to random code execution. That's why we want to keep it in tree and start it ourselves - I don't want CVEs claiming not validating some parameter we get from it is a remote code execution. It should be just a library that yes, we can keep out of process for extra security but no, we can't just out random stuff in there and never care. > > > > Anyway, it all boils down to lack of reviewers. I know I am not merging > > > > the current implementation because I could not figure out what do qemu > > > > bits do without looking at the implementation. I don't want to jump > > > > between so many trees and coding styles. bios/qemu/linux/dpdk are > > > > painful enough to manage. If some other maintainer volunteers, or if > > > > Peter wants to merge it directly from Stefan, I won't object. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > |: http://berrange.com -o- > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| > > > > > |: http://libvirt.org -o- > > > > > http://virt-manager.org :| > > > > > |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- > > > > > http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| > > > -- > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK