Re: [patch 1/4] add basic task isolation prctl interface

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:45:48PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 06:37:07AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 01:45:39AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:52:09AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > The meaning of isolated is specified as follows:
> > > > 
> > > > Isolation features
> > > > ==================
> > > > 
> > > > - prctl(PR_ISOL_GET, ISOL_SUP_FEATURES, 0, 0, 0) returns the supported
> > > > features as a return value.
> > > > 
> > > > - prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, ISOL_FEATURES, bitmask, 0, 0) enables the features in
> > > > the bitmask.
> > > > 
> > > > - prctl(PR_ISOL_GET, ISOL_FEATURES, 0, 0, 0) returns the currently
> > > > enabled features.
> > > 
> > > So what are the ISOL_FEATURES here? A mode that we enter such as flush
> > > vmstat _everytime_ we resume to userpace after (and including) this prctl() ?
> > 
> > ISOL_FEATURES is just the "command" type (which you can get and set).
> > 
> > The bitmask would include ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET, so:
> > 
> > - bitmask = ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET;
> > - prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, ISOL_FEATURES, bitmask, 0, 0) enables the features in
> > the bitmask.
> 
> But does it quiesce once or for every further uret?

For every uret, while ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET is enabled through 
prctl(PR_ISOL_ENABLE, enabled_bitmask, 0, 0, 0).

> > - quiesce_bitmap = prctl(PR_ISOL_GET, PR_ISOL_SUP_QUIESCE_CFG, 0, 0, 0)
> >   (1)
> > 
> >   (returns the supported actions to be quiesced).
> > 
> > - prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_CFG, quiesce_bitmask, 0, 0) _sets_
> > the actions to be quiesced (2)
> > 
> > If an application does not modify "quiesce_bitmask" between 
> > points (1) and (2) above, it will enable quiescing of all
> > "features" the kernel supports.
> 
> I don't get the difference between ISOL_FEATURES and PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_CFG.

prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, cmd, ...) is intented to accept different types of "command" 
variables (including ones for new features which are not known at this
time).

 - prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, ISOL_FEATURES, bitmask, 0, 0) enables the features in
   the bitmask

   (which might now be superceded by 

   prctl(PR_ISOL_ENABLE, ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET, 0, 0, 0))

- prctl(PR_ISOL_SET, PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_CFG, bitmask, 0, 0) configures
quiescing of which subsystem/feature is performed:

	#define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_VMSTAT_SYNC      (1<<0)
	#define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_NOHZ_FULL        (1<<1)
	#define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_DEFER_TLB_FLUSH  (1<<2)


> > Application can, however, modify quiesce_bitmap to its preference.
> > 
> > Flushing vmstat _everytime_ you resume to userspace is enabled only
> > _after_ prctl(PR_ISOL_ENTER, 0, 0, 0, 0) is performed (which happens 
> > only when isolation is fully configured with the PR_ISOL_SET calls).
> > OK, will better document that.
> 
> Yes please, I'm completely confused :o)

OK.

> > > If so I'd rather call that ISOL_MODE because feature is too general.
> > 
> > Well, in the first patchset, there was one "mode" implemented (but
> > it was possible to implement different modes in the future).
> > 
> > This would allow for example easier integration of "full task isolation"
> > patchset type of functionality, disallowing syscalls.
> > 
> > I think we'd like to keep that, so i'll keep the previous distinct modes
> > (but allow configuration of individual features on the bitmap).
> 
> And I also don't see how such modes differ from configuration of individual
> features on the bitmap.

Good point, they do not intersect, syscall disablement and notification of 
"isolation breakage" are orthogonal to quiescing.

> > > > - prctl(PR_ISOL_GET, PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_CFG, 0, 0, 0) returns
> > > > the currently enabled actions to be quiesced.
> > > > 
> > > > #define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_VMSTAT_SYNC      (1<<0)
> > > > #define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_NOHZ_FULL        (1<<1)
> > > > #define ISOL_F_QUIESCE_DEFER_TLB_FLUSH  (1<<2)
> > > 
> > > And then PR_ISOL_QUIESCE_CFG is a oneshot operation that applies only upon
> > > return to this ctrl, right? If so perhaps this should be called just
> > > ISOL_QUIESCE or ISOL_QUIESCE_ONCE or ISOL_REQ ?
> > 
> > There was no one-shot operation implemented in the first patchset. What
> > application would do to achieve that is:
> > 
> > 1. Configure isolation with PR_ISOL_SET (say configure mode which 
> > allows system calls, and when a system call happens, flush all deferred
> > actions on return to userspace).
> > 
> > 2. prctl(PR_ISOL_ENTER, 0, 0, 0, 0) (this actually enables the flushing, 
> > and tags the task_struct as isolated). Here we can transfer this information
> > from per-task to per-CPU data, for example, to be able to implement 
> > other features such as deferred TLB flushing.
> > 
> > On return from this prctl(), deferrable actions are flushed.
> > 
> > 3. latency sensitive loop, with no system calls.
> > 
> > 4. some event which requires system calls is noticed:
> >    prctl(PR_ISOL_EXIT, 0, 0, 0, 0)
> >    (this would untag task_struct as isolated).
> > 
> > 5. perform system calls A, B, C, D (with no flushing of vmstat, 
> > for example).
> > 
> > 6. jmp to 2.
> > 
> > So there is a problem with this logic, which is that one would like
> > certain isolation functionality to remain enabled between points 4
> > and 6 (for example, blocking CPU hotplug or other blockable activities
> > that would cause interruptions).
> > 
> > One way to achieve this would be to replace PR_ISOL_ENTER/PR_ISOL_EXIT
> > with PR_ISOL_ENABLE, which accepts a bitmask:
> > 
> > 1. Configure isolation with PR_ISOL_SET (say configure mode which 
> > allows system calls, and when a system call happens, flush all deferred
> > actions on return to userspace).
> > 
> > 2. enabled_bitmask = ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET|ISOL_F_BLOCK_INTERRUPTORS;
> >    prctl(PR_ISOL_ENABLE, enabled_bitmask, 0, 0, 0)
> > 
> > On return from this prctl(), deferrable actions are flushed.
> > 
> > 3. latency sensitive loop, with no system calls.
> > 
> > 4. some event which requires system calls is noticed:
> > 
> >    prctl(PR_ISOL_ENABLE, ISOL_F_BLOCK_INTERRUPTORS, 0, 0, 0)
> >    (this would clear ISOL_F_QUIESCE_ON_URET, so no flushing
> >     is performed on return from system calls).
> 
> So PR_ISOL_ENABLE is a way to perform action when some sort of kernel entry
> happens. Then we take actions when that happens (signal, warn, etc...).
> 
> I guess we'll need to define what kind of kernel entry, and what kind of
> response need to happen. Ok that's a whole issue of its own that we'll need
> to handle seperately.
> 
> Thanks.

In fact, why one can't use SECCOMP for syscall blocking?

Thanks.