On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:57:22PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/8/06 7:02 pm, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know of any alternative approach to detecting whether the fd
> > for the master end of a psuedo-TTY, has a its end slave open / active ?
> > Without being able to detect this I don't see any good way to avoid the DOS
> > attack in the general case - only other option would be to start dropping
> > data once > a certain rate, but this isn't really very desirable because
> > there are (debug) scenarios in which you really do want the ability to
> > capture all data.
>
> The protocol has flow control. If we rate-limited xenconsoled consumption of
> data from each domU ring, we would limit resource consumption in dom0 and
> not lose any data (since the domU will simply buffer it internally).
Ah, that's very handy. Looking at the xenconsoled code I think I've worked
out how to slow things down - although I'm not entirely sure I'm correctly
activating the throttling - basically I'm delaying the calls to the methods
xc_evtchn_notify & xc_evtchn_unmask after consuming data - is this the
correct approach ?
I'm attaching a patch which implements this scheme. In the buffer_append
method we keep a cumulative count of how much data we've consumed. Every
time if exceeds N bytes, we calculate the period over which those N bytes
were received. If this period is < than a threshold (ie fast) then I insert
a small delay before notifying & unmasking the event channel.
The patch sets
- data size 5 kb
- period 200 ms
- delay 200 ms
ie, if we receive 5 kb of data in less than 200 ms, we delay for 200 ms
before allowing more. These constants are #define'd for easy tuning, the
current values are fairly conservative / low data rate. Any thoughts on
what an appropriate data rate to allow from DomU is ?
Finaly question - in the handle_ring_read() method is the port returned
by xc_evtchn_pending guarrenteed to be same as port we already have a
reference to in 'struct domain' local_port field ? If so I can remove
the saved reference 'limited_port' I added in 'struct buffer'
For testing purposes just pick a DomU and run
while /bin/true ; do echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger ; done
Ordinarily this would cause Dom-0/xenconsoled to consume 100%. With this
patch applied there is negligable CPU time consumed by Dom-0/xenconsoled.
(If you increase delay to 2,000 ms you can visually see that no data is
being lost as a result of the delays).
Signed-off by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
xen-console-ratelimit-3.patch
Description: Text document
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home