Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:37:51 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side |
| |
* oerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
> > It can decide whether it exposes the files. Nor are there any "security > > issues" to begin with. > > I am not talking about security. [...]
You were talking about security, in the portion of your mail that you snipped out, and which i replied to:
> > 2. The guest can decide for its own if it want to pass this > > inforamtion to the host-perf. No security issues at all.
I understood that portion to mean what it says: that your claim that your proposal 'has no security issues at all', in contrast to my suggestion.
> [...] Security was sufficiently flamed about already.
All i saw was my suggestion to allow a guest to securely (and scalably and conveniently) integrate/mount its filesystems to the host if both sides (both the host and the guest) permit it, to make it easier for instrumentation to pick up symbol details.
I.e. if a guest runs then its filesystem may be present on the host side as:
/guests/Fedora-G1/ /guests/Fedora-G1/proc/ /guests/Fedora-G1/usr/ /guests/Fedora-G1/.../
( This feature would be configurable and would be default-off, to maintain the current status quo. )
i.e. it's a bit like sshfs or NFS or loopback block mounts, just in an integrated and working fashion (sshfs doesnt work well with /proc for example) and more guest transparent (obviously sshfs or NFS exports need per guest configuration), and lower overhead than sshfs/NFS - i.e. without the (unnecessary) networking overhead.
That suggestion was 'countered' by an unsubstantiated claim by Anthony that this kind of usability feature would somehow be a 'security nighmare'.
In reality it is just an incremental, more usable, faster and more guest-transparent form of what is already possible today via:
- loopback mounts on host - NFS exports - SMB exports - sshfs - (and other mechanisms)
I wish there was at least flaming about it - as flames tend to have at least some specifics in them.
What i saw instead was a claim about a 'security nightmare', which was, when i asked for specifics, was followed by deafening silence. And you appear to have repeated that claim here, unwilling to back it up with specifics.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |