x-containers: breaking down barriers to improve ...delimitrou/slides/... · linux kernel namespaces...

X-Containers: Breaking Down Barriers to Improve Performance and Isolation

of Cloud-Native ContainersZhiming Shen

Cornell University

Joint work with Zhen Sun, Gur-Eyal Sela, Eugene Bagdasaryan, Christina Delimitrou, Robbert Van Renesse, Hakim Weatherspoon

Software Containers

2

3Img src: https://pivotal.io/cloud-native

Cloud-Native Container Platforms

4Img src: https://pivotal.io/cloud-native

• Single Concern Principle:Every container should address a single concern and do it well.

• Making containers easier too Replace, reuse, and upgrade

transparentlyo Scale horizontallyo Debug and troubleshoot

Cloud-Native Container Platforms

Container

Proc

ess

Proc

ess

5

Hardware

Linux Kernelnamespaces cgroups SELinux

ContainerPr

oces

s

Proc

ess

Shared kernel attack surface and TCB

Not allowed to install kernel modules

The Problem

Hard to tune or optimize for a specific container

6

Existing Solutions

Linux

Container

Process

Process

Container

Linux

VM

Linux

Process

Process

Clear Container

KVMLinux

gVisor

Container

Process

Process

gVisor

Require nested hardware virtualization support in the cloud

Ptrace mode: high overheadKVM mode: require nested virtualization

IsolationCustomizationOptimizationPortabilityPerformance

X-Containers achieve• VM-level • Support of Kernel• Support of Kernel • Good (without the need of hardware-assisted virtualization)• High

AND• Backward Compatibility

7

IsolationCustomizationOptimization

PortabilityPerformance

OS Kernel

8

X-Containers

OS Kernel

Container

Process

Process

Container

Process

Process

User mode

Kernel mode

9

X-Containers

Container

Process

Process

Container

Process

Process

User mode

Kernel mode

OS Kernel OS Kernel

Exokernel

10

X-Containers

Container

Process

Process

Container

Process

Process

User mode

Kernel mode

OS Kernel OS Kernel

Exokernel

X-Container X-Container

11

X-Containers

Process

Process

Process

Process

User mode

Kernel mode

X-LibOS X-LibOS

X-Kernel

• A new security paradigm for cloud-native containers

• X-Kernel: an exokernel with a small attack surface and TCB• X-LibOS: a LibOS that decouples security isolation from the process model

12

X-Kernel

X-Container

X-Container

X-LibOSProcess

Process

X-Containers

Linux

Container

Process

Process

Container

Linux

VM

Linux

Process

Process

Clear Container

KVMLinux

gVisor

Container

Process

Process

gVisor

Threat Model and Design Trade-offs

• Threat model

• Trade-offs• Reduced intra-container isolation• Improved inter-container isolation and performance• Process isolation and kernel-supported security features are not effective

13

X-Kernel

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

Process

Implementation

• X-LibOS from Linux kernel• Binary compatibility• Highly customizable

• X-Kernel from Xen• Para-virtualization interface• Concurrent multi-processing

• Limitations• Memory management• Spawning time

14

X-Kernel

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

User mode

Kernel mode

Optimizing System Calls

• Existing solutions• Patch source code• Link to another library

• Our solution• Automatic Binary Optimization

Module (ABOM)• Binary level equivalence• Position-independence

15

Kernel Mode X-Kernel

User Mode

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

System calls Function calls

For many applications, more than 90% of syscalls are turned into function calls

Evaluation Setup

• Testbed• Amazon EC2• Google Compute Engine

• Compared container runtimes• Docker• gVisor (Ptrace in Amazon, and KVM in Google)• Clear-Container (only in Google)• Xen-Container• X-Container

• Configurations• Patched for Meltdown

16

System Call Performance

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Amazon Google

Norm

alize

d Pe

rform

ance

Docker Clear-Container gVisor Xen-Container X-Container

Up to 27X of Docker (patched) and 1.6X of Clear-Container

Real Application Performance

18

00.5

11.5

Amazon Google

NGINX

Norm

alize

d Th

roug

hput

1.21x~1.27x

0

2

4

Amazon Google

Memcached 2.64x~3.08x

00.5

11.5

Amazon Google

Redis 1x~1.2x

00.5

11.5

Amazon Google

Apache 0.64x~0.72x

Spawning Time and Memory Footprint

19

1.00 1.933.56

11.16

8.80

2.10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Docker X-Container

Mem

ory

Foot

prin

t (M

B)

Memory Footprint

FreeX-LibOSExtramicropython

3.66

0.46

0.28

0.280.56

0.29

0.29

0

1

2

3

4

5

Docker X-Container X-Container'

Tim

e (S

)

Spawning Time

User ProgramX-LibOS BootingXen Tool Stack

Reduced to 460ms. Can be further reduced to <10ms.

More Evaluations in the Paper

• More micro/macro benchmarks• Patched and unpatched for Meltdown• Comparing to Unikernel and Graphene• Scalability (up to 400 containers on a single host)

20

Conclusion

• X-Containers: a new security paradigm for isolating single-concerned cloud-native containers• X-Kernel: an exokernel with a small attack surface and TCB• X-LibOS: A LibOS that decouples security isolation from the process model• Trade-off: intra-container isolation vs. inter-container isolation

• Implemented with Xen and Linux• Binary compatibility• Concurrent multi-processing

• More at http://x-containers.org

21

Thank You. Questions?

Backup Slides

22

Pros and Cons of the X-Container Architecture

Container gVisor Clear-Container LightVM X-ContainerInter-container isolation Poor Good Good Good GoodSystem call performance Limited Poor Limited Poor GoodPortability Good Good Limited Good GoodCompatibility Good Limited Good Good GoodIntra-container isolation Good Good Good Good ReducedMemory efficiency Good Good Limited Limited LimitedSpawning time Short Short Moderate Moderate ModerateSoftware licensing Clean Clean Clean Clean Need

discussion

23

Comparing Isolation Boundaries

24

X-Kernel

X-Container

X-LibOS

Process

Process

Kernel

Container

Process

Process

Hypervisor

VM

Kernel

Process

Process

Hypervisor

VM

Process

Exokernel

ProcessLibOSLibOS Process

Microkernel

L4Linux

X-ContainerContainer Virtual Machine

Unikernel, Dune, EbbRT, OSv

Library OS (Exokernel)

L4Linux (Microkernel)

Kernel

Process

Process

Automatic Binary Optimization Module (ABOM)

25

00000000000eb6a0 <__read>: eb6a9: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax eb6ae: 0f 05 syscall

00000000000eb6a0 <__read>: eb6a9: ff 14 25 08 00 60 ff callq *0xffffffffff600008

0000000000010330 <__restore_rt>: 10330: 48 c7 c0 0f 00 00 00 mov $0xf,%rax 10337: 0f 05 syscall

0000000000010330 <__restore_rt>: 10330: ff 14 25 80 00 60 ff callq *0xffffffffff600080 10337: 0f 05 syscall

7-Byte Replacement (Case 1)

9-Byte Replacement (Phase-1)

0000000000010330 <__restore_rt>: 10330: ff 14 25 80 00 60 ff callq *0xffffffffff600080 10337: eb f7 jmp 0x10330

9-Byte Replacement (Phase-2)

000000000007f400 < syscall.Syscall>: 7f41d: 48 8b 44 24 08 mov 0x8(%rsp),%eax 7f422: 0f 05 syscall

000000000007f400 < syscall.Syscall>: 7f41d: ff 14 25 08 0c 60 ff callq *0xffffffffff600c08

7-Byte Replacement (Case 2)

The Exokernel Approach

• Separating protection and management

26

Exokernel

Hardware

Library OS

Process

Library OS

Process

Exokernel

Operating System Kernel

Hardware

Process Process

Monolithic OS Kernel