[libvirt] [PATCH 1/1] Support for Callbacks and VirtualBox Version 3.
by Pritesh Kothari
Hi All,
I have added support for callbacks and VirtualBox version 3.
I have attached the patch for the same, it is made against the head as of
today.
To check if the callbacks work you can run the example from examples/domain-
events/events-c directory and then start a domain to see if you get any
callback events.
Regards,
Pritesh
15 years, 9 months
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/9] Add support for (qcow*) volume encryption
by Miloslav Trmac
----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Not quite: the main case of a "dumb" client would be a large-scale
> > virtualization management software that contains a primary store
> > of encryption information, and gives each node access only to those
> > keys that are currently necessary by the node to run its domains;
> > the fact that each node has access to only a limited set of keys
> > prevents an attacker that compromises a single node from reading
> > disk images of all domains managed in the entire site, even if
> > the disk image storage (e.g. unencrypted NFS) does not allow
> > managing access by each node separately.
> >
> > Such a client must be able to transfer the actual secrets, not only
> > identifiers, to libvirt. (The idea of a "dumb" client, that does
> > not know the specifics of the format, is an additional feature on
> > top, but one that implies that the client does send the actual
> secrets.)
>
> This implies a flow of secrets
>
> Key server --\
> +-> libvirt client -> libvirt daemon -> qemu
> MGMT server --/
>
> This does not in fact guarentee that secrets for a particular
> node are only used on the node for which they are intended,
> because the key server cannot be sure of what libvirt daemons
> the libvirt client is connected to.
A client in this case is the central, fully trusted, management system (e.g. oVirt), there is no need to protect against it. A more likely flow is
MGMT client (no knowledge of secrets)
|
v
MGMT server + key server (integrated or separate but cooperating)
|
v
libvirt daemon
|
v
qemu
> What I am suggesting is that libvirt daemon should communicate
> with the key server directly in all cases, and take the client
> out of the loop. The client should merely indicate whether it
> wants encryption or not, and never be able to directly access
> any key material itself. With a direct trust relationship
> between the key server and each libvirtd daemon, you do now
> have a guarentee that keys are only ever used on the node for
> which they are intended. You also have the additional guarentee
> that no libvirt client can ever see any key secrets or passphrases
> since it has been taken completely out of the loop.
As far as I understand it, the whole point of virtual machine encryption is that the nodes are _not_ trusted, and different encryption keys protect data on different nodes.
If all nodes are trusted, what additional functionality does volume encryption with per-volume keys provide? If the nodes are trusted to read only data from the domains they currently host, the nodes could just as well use an encrypted local hard drive to store all images, or share a single key to encrypt all images stored on a NFS/SAN.
> Key server
> |
> V
> MGMT server -> libvirt client -> libvirt daemon -> qemu
>
> > Storage of secrets in a separate keystore is more important for "local"
> > libvirt deployments, where libvirt manages the primary, long-term,
> > store of the secrets.
>
> Nope, I think that having a keystore for all scenarios is the
> desirable end goal. Passing secrets around in the XML should
> ideally never be done at all - we should aim to always have a
> keystore that can be used. Secrets in the XML would just be a
> fallback for a rarely used niche cases, or disaster recovery,
> or experimentation.
That means that any deployment of more than one node with migration requires a separate server providing a shared keystore, even if there is only one client to manage the nodes. The N nodes x N "management consoles" case requires a centralized key store, but it's not necessary to impose it on the "1 management console" case.
> > > 2. A desktop key agent (eg gnome-keyring)
> > >
> > > This would be useful for the unprivileged libvirtd instances
> > > that run in the context of the desktop login session. Users
> > > already have SSH, GPG, website keys stored here, so having
> > > keys for their VM disks is obviously desirable
> >
> > Another option here is to let the client store the secrets in
> > gnome-keyring, and transfer them to libvirt only when starting
> > a domain (especially when there are no persistent domains).
> > That doesn't affect the design in any way, though.
>
> This is undesriable because it lets requires that any client which
> wishes to start the guest must have access to the secrets. We really
> need to be able to have separation of this, so that when we introduce
> fine grained access control, you can setup separate roles for users
> who can access / work with secrets, vs users who can start/define
> guests.
>
> > > 3. A off-node key management server
> > >
> > > This would be useful for a large scale data center / cluster
> > > cloud deployment. This is good to allow management
> scalability
> > > and better separation of responsiblities of adminstration.
> > >
> > > If no keystore is in use, then I clearly all keys must go in &
> out
> > > of libvirt using the XML, which is pretty much what you're doing
> > > in this series. I would say though, there is no point in clearing
> > > the secret from the virStorageVolDefPtr instance/XML after volume
> > > creation, since the secret is going to be kept in memory forever
> > > for any guest using the volume. By not clearing the secret, an
> > > app could create a volume, requesting automatic key generation,
> > > then just do virStorageVolDumpXML(vol,
> VIR_STORAGE_VOL_XML_SECURE)
> > > to extract it and pass to onto the XML for the guest that's
> created
> >
> > That is unreliable with current implementation, because a pool refresh
> > creates all information about volumes anew by reading the volume files;
> > therefore, after any pool refresh libvirt "forgets" the secrets directly
> > associated with a volume (not secrets associated with an use of a volume
> > in a domain). If client A creates a volume, client B can refresh the
> > pool before client A is able to read the automatically generated secrets.
> > One of the reasons the patch is clearing the information immediately is
> > to make sure a {virStorageVolCreateXML; virStorageVolGetXMLDesc) always
> > fails and no client is written depending on this racy operation sequence.
>
> > There is another, more important, reason why the node should never return
> > encryption data to anyone who can connect to it. Consider the above-
> > described situation of a large-scale virtualization deployment that uses
> > volume image encryption to restrict access of nodes to volume data: If
> > domain migration is supported, the nodes (all of them, or at least nodes
> > within some groups) must be able to connect "read-write" to other nodes.
>
> This is just another argument for taking clients out of the loop completely
> and having libvirt daemon always talk directly with keystores.
> > > With a keystore we'd likely need a handful of APIs
> > >
> > > - create a secret providing a passphrase
> > > - list all known secret UUIDs
> > > - get the passphrase assoicated with a secret
> > > - delete a secret based on UUID
> > > - lookup a secret UUID based on the a disk path
> >
> > We might not need all of these. There are three main use
> > cases for storing keys outside of XML:
> >
> > 1) This is a "small-scale deployment", where libvirt is the
> > primary key store, and anyone that is able to connect to
> > libvirtd is implicitly allowed to use the secrets. In this
> > case the keystore can be managed completely automatically -
> > creating a volume, or perhaps using it for the first time,
> > implies storing a secret, and deleting a volume implies
> > deleting a secret. Secrets are identified using a volume-
> > unique object (is that a path, or an UUID?), which is
> > completely transparent to the client. As long as the volume
> > is "known" to libvirt, the client does not even need to
> > specify any <encryption> element when creating a domain.
>
>
> > (1a, a "small-scale deployment" where there are multiple
> > clients that should be protected against each other, and
> > libvirt is the primary key store, does not make sense
> > unless a client account system is added to libvirt.
>
> > 2) The secrets are primarily stored outside libvirt (to
> > restrict node access to image data), and libvirt stores
> > only secrets for currently defined persistent domains (to
> > support domain autostart). In this case the keystore can
> > be managed completely automatically - persistent domain
> > definition implies storing a secret, deleting the domain
> > implies deleting a secret. Secrets are identified using
> > a (domain, volume) pair, and this identifier is never
> > exposed to the client.
>
> Deleting the domain does not imply deleting a secret, since
> secrets are really associated with disks, not domains.
It does, in this case - if the domain is not running on the node, the secret should not be stored on the node at all.
> A disk may be shared by multiple domains.
If a disk is shared, there will be multiple (domain volume) key ID pairs, and deleting one instace of the secret does not delete the other.
> In addition, when you delete
> a domain, libvirt does not delete the disk. It is the clients
> responsiblity to delete disks after the fact.
In this scenario the client does the long-term key storage. libvirt does not need to - and shouldn't - store the key merely because a volume exists.
> In any case items 1 & 2 are really just 2 different implementations
> of the same concept. There is a keystore, and libvirt talks to
> it. Whether the keystore is local, or remote from the node is a
> minor impl detail.
Whether libvirt can request any secret, even if does not need to know it, is not a minor detail.
> Use of a keystore of some format should be our primary goal here,
> since it takes the client out of the loop. When libvirt does ACLs
> on clients this is even more important, because when you revoke a
> clients' access to libvirt you can be sure they don't have a
> record of any of the secrets, since they never had any opportunity
> to see / use them during the time they were authenticated
> > 3) An external key store (such as a KMIP server) is used. In this
> > case the management of access rights, listing and deleting secrets,
> > would be performed by interacting with the external key store
> > directly. Secrets are identified by using the external key store
> > identifiers, and the client and libvirtd send these identifiers to
> > each other.
>
> As long as we allow for secrets to be passed in the XML it will always
> be possible for a client to talk to a keystore, obtain the secrets and
> pass them in the XML. This is really not a desirable model to aim for
> by default though, because it requires clients to know about all the
> different types of keystore. If a client does not know about a particular
> type of keystore, then it becomes unable to manage guests on that
> libvirtd.
> Not to mention the issue of trust of the client & revocation of
> access.
> Yes, libvirt will grow the concept of a user in the future, as well as
> access controls on (user, object, operation) tuples
Overall, it seems this all boils down to one thing - is libvirt intended to be a simple "virtualization server" that locally performs requested operations, managed by a separate "virtualization management" client that has full knowledge about the site (nodes, storage, secrets, access rights), with clients connecting to the "virtualization management" software instead of libvirtd, or a complete "virtualization management solution" that integrates all site-wide knowedge, accessed by dumb clients using the libvirt protocol?
My reading of http://www.libvirt.org/goals.html implies the former; you seem to talk about the latter model. Have I misunderstood the role of libvirt in a large-scale deployment?
Thank you,
Mirek
15 years, 9 months
[libvirt] [PATCH] test: Generate net interface names when assigning XML.
by Cole Robinson
We need interface names to implement InterfaceStats.
---
src/test.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/test.c b/src/test.c
index 098d235..f02b58b 100644
--- a/src/test.c
+++ b/src/test.c
@@ -228,6 +228,66 @@ static const unsigned long long defaultPoolAlloc = 0;
static int testStoragePoolObjSetDefaults(virConnectPtr conn, virStoragePoolObjPtr pool);
+static char *
+testDomainGenerateIfname(virConnectPtr conn,
+ virDomainDefPtr domdef) {
+ int maxif = 1024;
+ int ifctr, i;
+
+ for (ifctr = 0; ifctr < maxif; ++ifctr) {
+ char *ifname;
+ int found = 0;
+
+ if (virAsprintf(&ifname, "testnet%d", ifctr) < 0) {
+ virReportOOMError(conn);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+
+ /* Generate network interface names */
+ for (i = 0 ; i < domdef->nnets ; i++) {
+ if (domdef->nets[i]->ifname &&
+ STREQ (domdef->nets[i]->ifname, ifname)) {
+ found = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (!found)
+ return ifname;
+ }
+
+ testError(conn, VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
+ _("Exceeded max iface limit %d"), maxif);
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+static virDomainObjPtr
+testDomainAssignDef(virConnectPtr conn,
+ virDomainObjList *domlist,
+ virDomainDefPtr domdef)
+{
+ virDomainObjPtr domobj = NULL;
+ int i = 0;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < domdef->nnets; i++) {
+ char *ifname;
+ if (domdef->nets[i]->ifname)
+ continue;
+
+ ifname = testDomainGenerateIfname(conn, domdef);
+ if (!ifname)
+ goto error;
+
+ domdef->nets[i]->ifname = ifname;
+ }
+
+ if (!(domobj = virDomainAssignDef(conn, domlist, domdef)))
+ goto error;
+
+error:
+ return domobj;
+}
+
static int testOpenDefault(virConnectPtr conn) {
int u;
struct timeval tv;
@@ -282,7 +342,7 @@ static int testOpenDefault(virConnectPtr conn) {
defaultDomainXML,
VIR_DOMAIN_XML_INACTIVE)))
goto error;
- if (!(domobj = virDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains, domdef))) {
+ if (!(domobj = testDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains, domdef))) {
virDomainDefFree(domdef);
goto error;
}
@@ -608,7 +668,7 @@ static int testOpenFromFile(virConnectPtr conn,
goto error;
}
- if (!(dom = virDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains, def))) {
+ if (!(dom = testDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains, def))) {
virDomainDefFree(def);
goto error;
}
@@ -920,8 +980,8 @@ testDomainCreateXML(virConnectPtr conn, const char *xml,
VIR_DOMAIN_XML_INACTIVE)) == NULL)
goto cleanup;
- if ((dom = virDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
- def)) == NULL) {
+ if ((dom = testDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
+ def)) == NULL) {
virDomainDefFree(def);
goto cleanup;
}
@@ -1471,8 +1531,8 @@ static int testDomainRestore(virConnectPtr conn,
if (!def)
goto cleanup;
- if ((dom = virDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
- def)) == NULL)
+ if ((dom = testDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
+ def)) == NULL)
goto cleanup;
dom->state = VIR_DOMAIN_RUNNING;
@@ -1763,8 +1823,8 @@ static virDomainPtr testDomainDefineXML(virConnectPtr conn,
VIR_DOMAIN_XML_INACTIVE)) == NULL)
goto cleanup;
- if ((dom = virDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
- def)) == NULL) {
+ if ((dom = testDomainAssignDef(conn, &privconn->domains,
+ def)) == NULL) {
goto cleanup;
}
def = NULL;
--
1.6.0.6
15 years, 9 months
[libvirt] [PATCH] Don't allow NULL paths for BlockStats and InterfaceStats
by Cole Robinson
Do the check in libvirt.c, to save drivers from the burden. This changes
behavior slightly in the qemu driver: we no longer explictly error if
passed an empty string. An error will still be thrown when the device
lookup fails.
---
src/libvirt.c | 4 ++--
src/qemu_driver.c | 6 ------
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/libvirt.c b/src/libvirt.c
index 0e6d88f..d086052 100644
--- a/src/libvirt.c
+++ b/src/libvirt.c
@@ -3578,7 +3578,7 @@ virDomainBlockStats (virDomainPtr dom, const char *path,
virLibDomainError (NULL, VIR_ERR_INVALID_DOMAIN, __FUNCTION__);
return -1;
}
- if (!stats || size > sizeof stats2) {
+ if (!path || !stats || size > sizeof stats2) {
virLibDomainError (dom, VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG, __FUNCTION__);
goto error;
}
@@ -3636,7 +3636,7 @@ virDomainInterfaceStats (virDomainPtr dom, const char *path,
virLibDomainError (NULL, VIR_ERR_INVALID_DOMAIN, __FUNCTION__);
return -1;
}
- if (!stats || size > sizeof stats2) {
+ if (!path || !stats || size > sizeof stats2) {
virLibDomainError (dom, VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG, __FUNCTION__);
goto error;
}
diff --git a/src/qemu_driver.c b/src/qemu_driver.c
index c4683ae..c8f451d 100644
--- a/src/qemu_driver.c
+++ b/src/qemu_driver.c
@@ -5329,12 +5329,6 @@ qemudDomainInterfaceStats (virDomainPtr dom,
goto cleanup;
}
- if (!path || path[0] == '\0') {
- qemudReportError(dom->conn, dom, NULL, VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG,
- "%s", _("NULL or empty path"));
- goto cleanup;
- }
-
/* Check the path is one of the domain's network interfaces. */
for (i = 0 ; i < vm->def->nnets ; i++) {
if (vm->def->nets[i]->ifname &&
--
1.6.0.6
15 years, 9 months
[libvirt] [PATCH] python: Raise exceptions if virDomain*Stats fail.
by Cole Robinson
The generator couldn't tell that the stats return values were pointers.
Stick a white list in the function which tries to make this distinction.
---
python/generator.py | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/python/generator.py b/python/generator.py
index 9528839..feff7a3 100755
--- a/python/generator.py
+++ b/python/generator.py
@@ -683,7 +683,10 @@ functions_list_exception_test = {
functions_list_default_test = "%s is None"
def is_list_type (name):
- return name[-1:] == "*"
+ whitelist = [ "virDomainBlockStats",
+ "virDomainInterfaceStats" ]
+
+ return name[-1:] == "*" or name in whitelist
def nameFixup(name, classe, type, file):
# avoid a desastrous clash
--
1.6.0.6
15 years, 9 months
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/9] Add volume encryption information handling.
by Miloslav Trmac
----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> For the domain XML I agree that libirt would not need to worry about
> multiple LUKS keys, but for the storage volume XML we would need to
> expose the fact that there are multiple keys,or allow creation of
> volumes with multiple keys.
I don't know. Does a fact that a feature exist imply that libvirt must fully expose it? Any use case for multiple LUKS passphrases I can think of is a bit far-fetched.
> > We know that the type and amount of information that will need to be
> > stored will vary depending on the "encryption format"; on the other
> > hand, expecting that the information consists of independent "secrets",
> > each with a simple and format-independent definition, is probably too
> > optimistic. (As mentioned above, we might need a key slot ID associated
> > with a LUKS passphrase; we might also need a password hash algorithm
> > associated with a dm-crypt passphrase. The encryption formats used in
> > practice are often complex enough that a "simple passphrase" can not
> > be used.) Once we have to assume that each secret can have an "encryption
> > format"-dependent format, I think it is much clearer to use something like
>
> The idea of a 'key slot' and 'password hash algorithm' are not neccessarily
> unique to LUKS though.
No, but the specific semantics and value ranges are very likely to be different across formats.
> If we get 2 different encryption formats both requiring
> the concept of a 'key slot' we need to represent them in the same way in the
> XML, not hve a different XML for each format.
I was arguing about making the internal representation format-specific, not the XML.
In the XML, having something like <secret type='...' id='...'> and <parameter name='...' id='...'> is quite reasonable.
I think this is not the case in the internal representation - the information will eventually have to be "parsed" into format-specific variables, and it seems better to me to do this at once from the XML, than to create an additional internal representation and additionl "parsing" code.
<snip>
> The libvirt approach to XML representation is to try and define XML format
> that are indenpedant of specific implementations. This does imply that the
> XML parser cannot really do anything beyond basic syntactic validation,
> near zero semantic validation. The task of semantic validation of the
> parsed data, is thus passed off to the internal drivers which provide the
> specific implementations.
Not having any driver-specific knowledge in the generic parser does make sense; I'll change the code.
Mirek
15 years, 9 months
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 0/9] Add support for (qcow*) volume encryption
by Miloslav Trmac
Daniel,
thanks for the review.
----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > New XML tags are defined to represent encryption parameters (currently
> > format and passphrase, more can be added in the future), e.g.
> > <encryption format='qcow'>
> > <passphrase>c2lsbHk=</passphrase>
> > </encryption>
> > (passphrase content uses base64)
>
> I don't think we need 'format=qcow' in there - the guest XML already
> has ability to have a <driver name='qemu' type='qcow2'/> element,
> and the storage vol XML also has a <format type='qcow2'/> element.
The format of encrypted data is conceptually separate from the format of the image: for example, a future LVM crypt implementation is planned that will support on-line encryption key change (re-encrypting the data without needing to stop its users). This can be naturally used on partitions, but it can also be used on a ("loopback-mounted") file stored on another filesystem - which is useful because this gives us on-line encryption key change capability for both partitions and files without creating two separate implementations of the functionality.
(The same loopback setup could be done with LUKS today, although it is rather pointless.) So the fact that qemu treats the unencrypted file using the "raw" format does not imply that no encryption is used, or that any particular encryption implementation is used.
For these reasons I think the encryption format should be explicitly specified.
(The same information could be represented in the <driver> element, but there is currently no equivalent generic functionality for the <volume> element. It is also better to keep this information "within the <encryption> node", because this allows the "dumb" client discussed below to simply store the <encryption> node for each volume, and attach it inside <domain> descriptions, without any further understanding of the encryption format.)
> I think it would be good to change the naming of the inner element
> a little too. I think having it called 'secret' and then a 'type'
> attribute would be a little nicer. eg
>
> <encryption>
> <secret type='passphrase'/>c2lsbHk=</secret>
> </encryption>
OK, I'll change that.
> It might be desirable to add encryption algorithm, but that can probably
> wait since qcow doesn't support multiple algorithms at this time.
Exactly. The expected content of the <encryption> element is "format"-specific.
> > The <encryption> tag can be added to a <volume> node passed to
> > virStorageVolCreateXML() to create an encrypted volume, or to a
> > <disk> node inside a <domain> to specify what encryption parameters to
> > use for a domain. If the domain is persistent, the parameters
> > (including the passphrase) will be saved unencrypted in /etc/libvirtd;
> > the primary use case is to store the parameters outside of libvirtd,
> > (perhaps by virt-manager in a GNOME keyring).
> > - Support for "dumb" clients that don't know anything about encryption
> > formats and the required parameters: adding an encryption format to libvirt
> > would automatically make it supported in all clients.
> >
> > Such a client would only request that a volume should be created when
> > creating it, and libvirt would choose an appropriate format, parameters
> > and passphrase/key and return it to the client, who could later pass it
> > unmodified inside a <domain>.
> >
> > This requires public API additions to let libvirt return the encryption
> > information as one of the results of a volume creation operation.
> >
> > - Support for storing the passphrases/keys used by persistent domains
> > outside of the main XML files, e.g. in a separate passphrase-encrypted
> > file that must be entered on libvirtd startup.
>
> I think these two points overlap quite alot.
Not quite: the main case of a "dumb" client would be a large-scale virtualization management software that contains a primary store of encryption information, and gives each node access only to those keys that are currently necessary by the node to run its domains; the fact that each node has access to only a limited set of keys prevents an attacker that compromises a single node from reading disk images of all domains managed in the entire site, even if the disk image storage (e.g. unencrypted NFS) does not allow managing access by each node separately.
Such a client must be able to transfer the actual secrets, not only identifiers, to libvirt. (The idea of a "dumb" client, that does not know the specifics of the format, is an additional feature on top, but one that implies that the client does send the actual secrets.)
Storage of secrets in a separate keystore is more important for "local" libvirt deployments, where libvirt manages the primary, long-term, store of the secrets.
> As you say there are two initial approaches to persistence of secrets
>
> - Keep the keys in the domain XML files
> - Use a separate keystore
>
> For the separate keystore, there are probably 3 interesting targets
> to consider
>
> 1. A simple text (or pkcs11) file managed by libvirtd on the host
>
> This would be useful for the privileged libvirtd to use in
> ad-hoc, small scale deployments. Perhaps allowing it to be
> shared between a small number of hosts on NFS, or GFS etc
>
> 2. A desktop key agent (eg gnome-keyring)
>
> This would be useful for the unprivileged libvirtd instances
> that run in the context of the desktop login session. Users
> already have SSH, GPG, website keys stored here, so having
> keys for their VM disks is obviously desirable
Another option here is to let the client store the secrets in gnome-keyring, and transfer them to libvirt only when starting a domain (especially when there are no persistent domains). That doesn't affect the design in any way, though.
> 3. A off-node key management server
>
> This would be useful for a large scale data center / cluster
> cloud deployment. This is good to allow management scalability
> and better separation of responsiblities of adminstration.
>
> If no keystore is in use, then I clearly all keys must go in & out
> of libvirt using the XML, which is pretty much what you're doing
> in this series. I would say though, there is no point in clearing
> the secret from the virStorageVolDefPtr instance/XML after volume
> creation, since the secret is going to be kept in memory forever
> for any guest using the volume. By not clearing the secret, an
> app could create a volume, requesting automatic key generation,
> then just do virStorageVolDumpXML(vol, VIR_STORAGE_VOL_XML_SECURE)
> to extract it and pass to onto the XML for the guest that's created
That is unreliable with current implementation, because a pool refresh creates all information about volumes anew by reading the volume files; therefore, after any pool refresh libvirt "forgets" the secrets directly associated with a volume (not secrets associated with an use of a volume in a domain). If client A creates a volume, client B can refresh the pool before client A is able to read the automatically generated secrets. One of the reasons the patch is clearing the information immediately is to make sure a {virStorageVolCreateXML; virStorageVolGetXMLDesc) always fails and no client is written depending on this racy operation sequence.
There is another, more important, reason why the node should never return encryption data to anyone who can connect to it. Consider the above-described situation of a large-scale virtualization deployment that uses volume image encryption to restrict access of nodes to volume data: If domain migration is supported, the nodes (all of them, or at least nodes within some groups) must be able to connect "read-write" to other nodes. Yet, if the volume image encryption is to restrict access to volume data, such connections must not allow extracting encryption secrets, or any compromised node could simply ask the other nodes for their secrets and read the data. Thus, even a read-write connection should not allow any client to read secrets. I did not realize this when I started writing the original patches; I'll modify them not to allow returning the secrets using virDomainGetXMLDesc(), which is currently possible.
The only potential exception is volume creation with secret auto-generation (not implemented in these patches), and in this case it is important to ensure that only the client that initiated the volume creation, not other clients, is can get the generated secrets. The most natural implementation would be a new operation (virStorageVolCreateXMLFromAndReturn???) that generates the secrets, creates the volume, and returns the secrets in a single step. In this scenario virStorageVolDumpXML does not need to return the secrets.
> If a keystore is in use, then I'd suggest we should have explicit
> APIs for secret management,
As argued below, that might not be necessary, depending on the intended scope of libvirt.
> and forbid the use of the actual secrets
> in the XML everywhere.
I wouldn't necessarily be that strict - if a centralized key management server is used by libvirt, it might still make sense for users to create one-off virtual machines that are encrypted, but not managed by the centralized infrastructure.
> Instead, either pass in a pre-created key UUID when creating a volume
> or defining a guest eg, the XML fragment would look like this
>
> <encryption>
> <secret type='keyuuid'>123456-1234-1245-1234-124512345</secret>
> </encryption>
>
> Internally libvirt would then get the real passphrase from the keystore
> by looking up the associated UUID.
>
> Or request auto-creation of a key by leaving out the data
>
> <encryption>
> <secret type='keyuuid'/>
> </encryption>
>
> Internally libvirt would add a key to its database, and fillin the UUID
> which you could then see via DumpXML.
>
> With a keystore we'd likely need a handful of APIs
>
> - create a secret providing a passphrase
> - list all known secret UUIDs
> - get the passphrase assoicated with a secret
> - delete a secret based on UUID
> - lookup a secret UUID based on the a disk path
We might not need all of these. There are three main use cases for storing keys outside of XML:
1) This is a "small-scale deployment", where libvirt is the primary key store, and anyone that is able to connect to libvirtd is implicitly allowed to use the secrets. In this case the keystore can be managed completely automatically - creating a volume, or perhaps using it for the first time, implies storing a secret, and deleting a volume implies deleting a secret. Secrets are identified using a volume-unique object (is that a path, or an UUID?), which is completely transparent to the client. As long as the volume is "known" to libvirt, the client does not even need to specify any <encryption> element when creating a domain.
(1a, a "small-scale deployment" where there are multiple clients that should be protected against each other, and libvirt is the primary key store, does not make sense unless a client account system is added to libvirt. If libvirt can not distinguish between different client accounts, it can only restrict access to secrets by insisting that the client specifies a keyuuid - but the client will need to store the keyuuid values and protect them exactly as if they were the "real" secrets; the client can just as easily store the "real" secrets and skip using keyuuids altogether.)
2) The secrets are primarily stored outside libvirt (to restrict node access to image data), and libvirt stores only secrets for currently defined persistent domains (to support domain autostart). In this case the keystore can be managed completely automatically - persistent domain definition implies storing a secret, deleting the domain implies deleting a secret. Secrets are identified using a (domain, volume) pair, and this identifier is never exposed to the client.
3) An external key store (such as a KMIP server) is used. In this case the management of access rights, listing and deleting secrets, would be performed by interacting with the external key store directly. Secrets are identified by using the external key store identifiers, and the client and libvirtd send these identifiers to each other.
The above seems to indicate the only operations libvirt needs from a keystore are:
- generate a UUID (in a keystore-specific format)
- store a secret using a specified UUID
- get secret associated with an UUID
- delete a secret associated with an UUID.
The first two operations could perhaps be combined, depending on the specifics of the external key store (e.g. the client might want to allocate an UUID so that the client, not the node, is the "owner" of the UUID, grant the node access to the UUID, and let the node create a volume and store the secret in the UUID).
> The nice thing about separating the passphrases out of the XML completely
> is that we would then have the ability to do fine grained access control.
> eg, you could give people ability to create new guests / volumes, using
> encryption without them ever specifying, or having access to the secrets.
> A seperate role could be given ability to create/list/delete secrets.
> This would also let us associate one secret with many disks, which
> might be a useful scenario for some people.
AFAICS libvirt does not currently have the concept of an "user"; as described above, such features can be handled in an external key store. If you plan to add the "user" concept to libvirt, this would definitely make sense.
Mirek
15 years, 9 months
[libvirt] [PATCH 0/9] Add support for (qcow*) volume encryption
by Miloslav Trmač
Hello,
the following patches add full support for qcow/qcow2 volume encryption,
assuming a client that supports it.
New XML tags are defined to represent encryption parameters (currently
format and passphrase, more can be added in the future), e.g.
<encryption format='qcow'>
<passphrase>c2lsbHk=</passphrase>
</encryption>
(passphrase content uses base64)
The <encryption> tag can be added to a <volume> node passed to
virStorageVolCreateXML() to create an encrypted volume, or to a
<disk> node inside a <domain> to specify what encryption parameters to
use for a domain. If the domain is persistent, the parameters
(including the passphrase) will be saved unencrypted in /etc/libvirtd;
the primary use case is to store the parameters outside of libvirtd,
(perhaps by virt-manager in a GNOME keyring).
Possible enhancements:
- Documentation and test cases. I'll write both if the code is acceptable,
I wanted to make the code available for review first.
- Support for "dumb" clients that don't know anything about encryption
formats and the required parameters: adding an encryption format to libvirt
would automatically make it supported in all clients.
Such a client would only request that a volume should be created when
creating it, and libvirt would choose an appropriate format, parameters
and passphrase/key and return it to the client, who could later pass it
unmodified inside a <domain>.
This requires public API additions to let libvirt return the encryption
information as one of the results of a volume creation operation.
- Support for storing the passphrases/keys used by persistent domains
outside of the main XML files, e.g. in a separate passphrase-encrypted
file that must be entered on libvirtd startup.
15 years, 9 months
Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/9] Attach encryption information to virStorageVolDef.
by Daniel P. Berrange
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:19:22AM -0400, Miloslav Trmac wrote:
> ----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 01:11:58PM +0200, Miloslav Trma?? wrote:
> > > Note that partial encryption information (e.g. specifying an encryption
> > > format, but not the key/passphrase) is valid:
> > > * virStorageVolGetXMLDesc() will never reveal the key/passphrase, even
> > > if known by libvirt.
> >
> > I don't think that restriction really adds anything in the scenario
> > that we're using domain XML files for persistent storage of keys.
>
> The patches leave this decision to the client: the client might decide
> not to use persistent domains. In any case, allowing the node to store
> the secrets locally does not imply that anyone that can connect to the
> node read-write can access the secrets - or does it?
In general all libvirt clients have the same privileges, the only restriction
being local read-only clients. Basically if a client authenticates read-write
then they can access / modify all objects managed on that host.
In the future we will introduce fine grained access control down to a
level of (user, object, operation).
> > eg, if domain XML lets you see passphrases, then vol XML should
> > too (given a suitable VIR_STORAGE_VOL_SECURE flag).
>
> Domain XML should not allow returning the secrets either, because domain
> migration lets other nodes connect read-write - see [0/9] for more details.
We have to allow returning the secrets, because clients need to be able to
round-trip the XML without loosing data, eg
xml = virDomainGetXMLDesc(dom, VIR_DOMAIN_XML_INACTIVE | VIR_DOMAIN_XML_SECURE)
...modify xml...
virDomainDefineXML(conn, xml)
must not loose any data, including the secrets.
> > > * Future mechanisms could be set up to allow a libvirt user to specify
> > > during volume creation that a volume should be encrypted, leaving
> > > libvirt to choose suitable parameters and key and return them:
> > > this would allow the libvirt user to automatically support any
> > > encryption parameters (and perhaps encryption formats) supported in
> > > libvirt, as long as the user can send the same information back when
> > > using the volume in the future.
> >
> > We could allow this now without extra APIs, if we let virStorageVolGetXML
> > show the ke/passphrase given a new VIR_STORAGE_VOL_SECURE flag.
>
> That is racy with respect to pool refresh, and gives other clients than
> the node creator (again, other nodes) access to the secrets - again,
> see [0/9].
Allowing other clients access to the secrets is fine - all authenticated
clients are considered equal. We shouldn't try to define restrictions
on this specifically for disk encryption, as fine grained per-client
access control will be introduced across the whole of libvirt at a
later date.
There is a small race wrt to pool refresh, however, in the scenario
of not using a keystore, this is an acceptable limitation IMHO. If
using a keystore, then libvirt can associate a key ID with a volume
and maintain that mapping long term, and reliably pass the actual
secrets about internally.
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 :|
15 years, 9 months
