From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
Cong Wang <cwang@multikernel.io>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Changyuan Lyu <changyuanl@google.com>,
kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
multikernel@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 0/7] kernel: Introduce multikernel architecture support
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 11:28:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWRZ-vihMEa=k-j9EYN9itUeZLhZ14AoCvZ9mturFxAyw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250924125101.GA562097@fedora>
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 5:51 AM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 01:38:31PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Two more points:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Security lockdown. Security lockdown transforms multikernel from
> > > > "0-day means total compromise" to "0-day means single workload
> > > > compromise with rapid recovery." This is still a significant improvement
> > > > over containers where a single kernel 0-day compromises everything
> > > > simultaneously.
> > >
> > > I don't follow. My understanding is that multikernel currently does not
> > > prevent spawned kernels from affecting each other, so a kernel 0-day in
> > > multikernel still compromises everything?
> >
> > I would assume that if there is no enforced isolation by the hardware (e.g.,
> > virtualization, including partitioning hypervisors like jailhouse, pkvm etc)
> > nothing would stop a kernel A to access memory assigned to kernel B.
> >
> > And of course, memory is just one of the resources that would not be
> > properly isolated.
> >
> > Not sure if encrypting memory per kernel would really allow to not let other
> > kernels still damage such kernels.
> >
> > Also, what stops a kernel to just reboot the whole machine? Happy to learn
> > how that will be handled such that there is proper isolation.
>
> The reason I've been asking about the fault isolation and security
> statements in the cover letter is because it's unclear:
> 1. What is implemented today in multikernel.
> 2. What is on the roadmap for multikernel.
> 3. What is out of scope for multikernel.
>
> Cong: Can you clarify this? If the answer is that fault isolation and
> security are out of scope, then this discussion can be skipped.
It is my pleasure. The email is too narrow, therefore I wrote a
complete document for you:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yneO6O6C_z0Lh3A2QyT8XsH7ZrQ7-naGQT-rpdjWa_g/edit?usp=sharing
I hope it answers all of the above questions and provides a clear
big picture. If not, please let me know.
(If you need edit permission for the above document, please just
request, I will approve.)
Regards,
Cong Wang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-24 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-18 22:25 Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 1/7] kexec: Introduce multikernel support via kexec Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 2/7] x86: Introduce SMP INIT trampoline for multikernel CPU bootstrap Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 3/7] x86: Introduce MULTIKERNEL_VECTOR for inter-kernel communication Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 4/7] kernel: Introduce generic multikernel IPI communication framework Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 5/7] x86: Introduce arch_cpu_physical_id() to obtain physical CPU ID Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 6/7] kexec: Implement dynamic kimage tracking Cong Wang
2025-09-18 22:26 ` [RFC Patch 7/7] kexec: Add /proc/multikernel interface for " Cong Wang
2025-09-19 10:10 ` [syzbot ci] Re: kernel: Introduce multikernel architecture support syzbot ci
2025-09-19 13:14 ` [RFC Patch 0/7] " Pasha Tatashin
2025-09-20 21:13 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-19 21:26 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-09-20 21:40 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-22 14:28 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-09-22 22:41 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-23 17:05 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-09-24 11:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-09-24 12:51 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-09-24 18:28 ` Cong Wang [this message]
2025-09-24 19:03 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-09-27 19:42 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-29 15:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2025-10-02 4:17 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-24 17:18 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-21 1:47 ` Hillf Danton
2025-09-22 21:55 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-24 1:12 ` Hillf Danton
2025-09-24 17:30 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-24 22:42 ` Hillf Danton
2025-09-21 5:54 ` Jan Engelhardt
2025-09-21 6:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-09-24 17:51 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2025-09-24 18:39 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-26 9:50 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-27 20:43 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-28 14:22 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-28 14:36 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-28 14:41 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-25 15:47 ` Jiaxun Yang
2025-09-27 20:06 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-26 9:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-09-27 20:27 ` Cong Wang
2025-09-27 20:39 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-09-28 14:08 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAM_iQpWRZ-vihMEa=k-j9EYN9itUeZLhZ14AoCvZ9mturFxAyw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=changyuanl@google.com \
--cc=cwang@multikernel.io \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=multikernel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox