Re: [Xen-devel] On Dom0 disaggregation

[Mihir Nanavati <mihirn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2012-01-12, at 5:31 AM, Joanna Rutkowska <joanna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> On 01/12/12 13:13, Tim Deegan wrote:
>> At 12:18 +0100 on 12 Jan (1326370728), Joanna Rutkowska wrote:
>>> On 01/12/12 11:48, Tim Deegan wrote:
>>>> I think the point is to protect xenstore from dom0, not dom0 from
>>>> xenstore.  With stub-xenstore and driver domains, only the domain
>>>> builder and PCIback need to have any privilege, and they can be moved
>>>> out of dom0 too (e.g., http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1346278 ,
>>>> http://tjd.phlegethon.org/words/sosp11-xoar.html)
>>> 
>>> In order for this to make sense from security point of view, you would
>>> need to deprivilige Dom0.
>> 
>> Yep.  That's what Xoar did (or, if you prefer, it moved all dom0's
>> components out and then got rid of it).
>> 
>>> When considering this task, one should answer
>>> the following questions:
>>> 
>>> 1) Who manages the chipset (MCH)?
>> 
>> A driver domain that contains PCIback.  It doesn't need general
>> privlege (e.g. for scheduler or memory operations).
>> 
>>> 2) Who manages the input (keyboard, mouse)
>>> 3) Who manages the output (GPU, specifically critical on client systems)
>>> 
>>> From the security point of view there is no point of isolating the
>>> entities that manage the above between each other, because a compromise
>>> of any of those entities leads to full system compromise (again, #3
>>> applies to client systems).
>> 
>> #2 is really a client-only thing as well.  Serial console input for
>> servers is owned directly by the hypervisor.
>> 
>>> Now, as you pointed out, we shall probably add another bullet to the
>>> list, which is:
>>> 
>>> 4) the xenstored
>>> 
>>> (although I'm not 100% if we couldn't somehow deprivilige xenstored).
>> 
>> Yes we could (and Xoar did).  IIRC the only reason it needs privilege is
>> to map the rings and that can be sorted out by having the builder
>> pre-load a grant entry.
>> 
>>> So, we end up with a conclusion that there is no point separating those
>>> 4 functionalists between each other, and so it only make sense to host
>>> them in the same domain. How about we call this domain "Dom0", then? ;)
>> 
>> So you're saying that the PCIback domain (which owns the chipsets) might
>> as well host Xenstore since either of them could hose the system.
>> Maybe so.  In Xoar we had two reasons not to do that:
>> - in some configurations you could shut that domain down after boot
>>   (though tbh doing that leads to poor error handling!); and
>> - we were doing other hardening of Xenstore that involved breaking it 
>>   up into more than one VM. 
>> 
> 
> But the paper says the PCIBack is destroyed after init -- who manages
> the chipset (MCH, ICH, platform power management), then?
> 
> Also, if I correctly interpret your architecture, then BlkBack VM must
> be trusted, as it has access to the disk, and thus can serve compromised
> fs/kernel/initramfs images to VMs, and also modify boot partition to
> load compromised Xen on the next boot (unless you use something like
> Intel TXT for Xen load). So, what's the reason of separating it from
> (the trusted) Xenstored VM?
> 
> Unless the kernel/initramfs images (at least for PV domains) come from
> some trusted source, not from blkbackend? Then they could contain code
> to verify integrity of the fs served from blkbackend. Have you
> considered this in your architecture?

Indeed. The domain builder only builds known good kernels, currently which are 
served from its ramdisk. There is an alternative architecture where it's served 
by a special storage domain via shared memory too.

You're right about the block backend needing to be trusted to some extent; it's 
only a matter of reducing who needs to trust it. On a system with multiple disk 
controllers, the one serving Xen could be split from the one serving the VMs. 
With only a single controller, you'd probably use TXT.


> 
> Also, if this was a client system, where would you put user input/output
> handling?

I'm afraid I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean here...

~M

> 
> joanna.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel