[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC][PATCH]: Secure migration



On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:43:40PM +0100, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 04:26:58PM +0100, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> >> All,
> >>      Attached is a *very* rough first draft of the secure migration code I'm
> >> working on.  This is in no way ready for merge.  That being said, this
> >> demonstrates the basic idea that I'm pursuing, and I've actually been able to
> >> perform a KVM secure live migrate using this.  Before I go and finish polishing
> >> it up, though, I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything fundamentally wrong
> >> with the approach.  So, in that vein, comments are appreciated.
> > 
> >> diff --git a/qemud/remote_protocol.h b/qemud/remote_protocol.h
> >> index 75def5e..d97a18b 100644
> >> --- a/qemud/remote_protocol.h
> >> +++ b/qemud/remote_protocol.h
> >> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ typedef remote_nonnull_string *remote_string;
> >>  #define REMOTE_SECURITY_MODEL_MAX VIR_SECURITY_MODEL_BUFLEN
> >>  #define REMOTE_SECURITY_LABEL_MAX VIR_SECURITY_LABEL_BUFLEN
> >>  #define REMOTE_SECURITY_DOI_MAX VIR_SECURITY_DOI_BUFLEN
> >> +#define REMOTE_CONNECT_SECURE_MIGRATION_DATA_MAX 65536
> >> +#define REMOTE_CONNECT_SECURE_MIGRATION_COOKIE_MAX 65536
> >>  
> >>  typedef char remote_uuid[VIR_UUID_BUFLEN];
> >>  
> > 
> >   Okay I have tried to think again about this, from the code fragment
> > before and discussions on IRC while performances are tolerable, there
> > is a lot of costs related to the 64KB chunking imposed by the XML-RPC.
> 
> Just so others are clear on what this means:
> 
> After doing a little bugfixing on the version of the code I posted, I did some
> performance measurements with a guest using 3.4GB of memory.  A standard
> migration, direct qemu->qemu, took somewhere between 30 seconds and a minute to
> complete this.  The encrypted version took anywhere between 1 minute and 3
> minutes to complete the migration, a slowdown of between 1.5 and 3 times.  I'll
> have to do some more testing to get more solid numbers.
> 
> >   It is probably acceptable for a class of users who really want
> > encryption of their data but I would like to make sure we don't close
> > the door for a possibly more performant implementation.
> 
> Yes, that's a good point.
> 
> >   Trying to reopen a bit the discussion we had before on opening a
> > separate encrypted connection, this would have a number of potential
> > improvements over the XML-RPC:
> >    - no chunking, far less context-switching (it would be good to know
> >      how much of excess time spent in the secure migration is data
> >      encoding, how much is overall system burden)
> 
> Well, as DanB points out later, there is still chunking, but we get rid of the
> RPC overhead of a reply to every packet.
> 
> >   My main concern is keeping a port open in the firewall for the
> > incoming connection of the encrypted data, and I wonder if it's really
> > necessary, basically since the receiver and the sender can both
> > communicate already via the XML-RPC maybe something like STUN (for UDP)
> > where both end open simultaneously a new connection to the other side
> > might work, and that can be coordinated via the XML-RPC (passing the new
> > port opened etc). The point being that usually firewall block only
> > incoming connections to non-registered port but outcoming connections
> > are allowed to go, I have no idea if this can be made to work though.
> >   In general I would like to make sure we have room in the initial phase
> > to add such a negociation where an optimal solution may be attempted,
> > possibly falling back to a normal XML-RPC solution like this.
> > Basically, make sure we can try to be as efficient as possible, and
> > allow the protocol to evolve, but fallback to XML-RPC encapsulation
> > if that initial round fails.
> 
> I'm not so sure I agree with this.  If we have a reasonably generic solution, I
> think the admin would prefer to know up-front that the most performant solution
> is misconfigured somehow, rather than libvirt silently falling back to a less
> optimal solution.  I think we should work on finding a solution that provides
> the encryption and has reasonably good performance, and just stick with one
> solution.
> 
> What I'm going to do early next week is do some additional work to try to get
> DanB's suggestion of the STREAM_DATA RPC working.  Then I'll try benchmarking
> (both for duration, and CPU usage):
> 
> 1)  Original, unencrypted migration as a baseline
> 2)  Direct TLS->TLS stream migration; this requires a new port in the firewall,
> but will be another good data point, and I already have the code for this
> sitting around
> 3)  The solution I posted here
> 4)  The STREAM_DATA solution

FWIW, I'd consider it a bug in libvirtd impl if option 4) could not match 
the performance of option 2)....

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]