From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A906FC433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5232072E for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726980AbgFDEj4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:56 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:1136 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725497AbgFDEj4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:56 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05442LB6099781; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:33 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31epx7vjp4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0544Hf6A147403; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31epx7vjn0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0544ToLe026352; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:31 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31bwg36ruv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:39:30 +0000 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0544dUmL49152500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:30 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2607C112061; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAD8112062; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morokweng.localdomain (unknown [9.160.46.38]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:26 +0000 (GMT) References: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, brijesh.singh@amd.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, pair@us.ibm.com, Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , cohuck@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Marcel Apfelbaum , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , David Gibson Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/18] Refactor configuration of guest memory protection In-reply-to: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:39:22 -0300 Message-ID: <87tuzr5ts5.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-03_23:2020-06-02,2020-06-03 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=1 lowpriorityscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006040020 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Hello David, David Gibson writes: > A number of hardware platforms are implementing mechanisms whereby the > hypervisor does not have unfettered access to guest memory, in order > to mitigate the security impact of a compromised hypervisor. > > AMD's SEV implements this with in-cpu memory encryption, and Intel has > its own memory encryption mechanism. POWER has an upcoming mechanism > to accomplish this in a different way, using a new memory protection > level plus a small trusted ultravisor. s390 also has a protected > execution environment. > > The current code (committed or draft) for these features has each > platform's version configured entirely differently. That doesn't seem > ideal for users, or particularly for management layers. > > AMD SEV introduces a notionally generic machine option > "machine-encryption", but it doesn't actually cover any cases other > than SEV. > > This series is a proposal to at least partially unify configuration > for these mechanisms, by renaming and generalizing AMD's > "memory-encryption" property. It is replaced by a > "guest-memory-protection" property pointing to a platform specific > object which configures and manages the specific details. > > For now this series covers just AMD SEV and POWER PEF. I'm hoping it Thank you very much for this series! Using a machine property is a nice way of configuring this. >From an end-user perspective, `-M pseries,guest-memory-protection` in the command line already expresses everything that QEMU needs to know, so having to add `-object pef-guest,id=pef0` seems a bit redundant. Is it possible to make QEMU create the pef-guest object behind the scenes when the guest-memory-protection property is specified? Regardless, I was able to successfuly launch POWER PEF guests using these patches: Tested-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann > can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well, > though. > > Note: I'm using the term "guest memory protection" throughout to refer > to mechanisms like this. I don't particular like the term, it's both > long and not really precise. If someone can think of a succinct way > of saying "a means of protecting guest memory from a possibly > compromised hypervisor", I'd be grateful for the suggestion. Is "opaque guest memory" any better? It's slightly shorter, and slightly more precise about what the main characteristic this guest property conveys. -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709FBC433DF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 08:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36C91206DC for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 08:35:11 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 36C91206DC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:43576 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jglLC-00074M-CE for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:35:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56552) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jghfM-0002su-9d; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:44 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:21302) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jghfL-0000W9-6M; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 05442LB6099781; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:33 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31epx7vjp4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from m0098396.ppops.net (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0544Hf6A147403; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31epx7vjn0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 00:39:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0544ToLe026352; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:31 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.25]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31bwg36ruv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:39:30 +0000 Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.109]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0544dUmL49152500 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:30 GMT Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2607C112061; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAD8112062; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morokweng.localdomain (unknown [9.160.46.38]) by b01ledav004.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 04:39:26 +0000 (GMT) References: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: qemu-ppc@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/18] Refactor configuration of guest memory protection In-reply-to: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 01:39:22 -0300 Message-ID: <87tuzr5ts5.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-06-03_23:2020-06-02, 2020-06-03 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=1 lowpriorityscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006040020 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=148.163.156.1; envelope-from=bauerman@linux.ibm.com; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/04 00:39:40 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 04:33:11 -0400 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pair@us.ibm.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , cohuck@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, David Gibson , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hello David, David Gibson writes: > A number of hardware platforms are implementing mechanisms whereby the > hypervisor does not have unfettered access to guest memory, in order > to mitigate the security impact of a compromised hypervisor. > > AMD's SEV implements this with in-cpu memory encryption, and Intel has > its own memory encryption mechanism. POWER has an upcoming mechanism > to accomplish this in a different way, using a new memory protection > level plus a small trusted ultravisor. s390 also has a protected > execution environment. > > The current code (committed or draft) for these features has each > platform's version configured entirely differently. That doesn't seem > ideal for users, or particularly for management layers. > > AMD SEV introduces a notionally generic machine option > "machine-encryption", but it doesn't actually cover any cases other > than SEV. > > This series is a proposal to at least partially unify configuration > for these mechanisms, by renaming and generalizing AMD's > "memory-encryption" property. It is replaced by a > "guest-memory-protection" property pointing to a platform specific > object which configures and manages the specific details. > > For now this series covers just AMD SEV and POWER PEF. I'm hoping it Thank you very much for this series! Using a machine property is a nice way of configuring this. >From an end-user perspective, `-M pseries,guest-memory-protection` in the command line already expresses everything that QEMU needs to know, so having to add `-object pef-guest,id=pef0` seems a bit redundant. Is it possible to make QEMU create the pef-guest object behind the scenes when the guest-memory-protection property is specified? Regardless, I was able to successfuly launch POWER PEF guests using these patches: Tested-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann > can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well, > though. > > Note: I'm using the term "guest memory protection" throughout to refer > to mechanisms like this. I don't particular like the term, it's both > long and not really precise. If someone can think of a succinct way > of saying "a means of protecting guest memory from a possibly > compromised hypervisor", I'd be grateful for the suggestion. Is "opaque guest memory" any better? It's slightly shorter, and slightly more precise about what the main characteristic this guest property conveys. -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center