On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 13:42:46 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well,
> > though.
> 
> For s390, there's the 'unpack' cpu facility bit, which is indicated iff
> the kernel indicates availability of the feature (depending on hardware
> support). If that cpu facility is available, a guest can choose to
> transition into protected mode. The current state (protected mode or
> not) is tracked in the s390 ccw machine.
> 
> If I understand the series here correctly (I only did a quick
> read-through), the user has to instruct QEMU to make protection
> available, via a new machine property that links to an object?

Correct.  We used to have basically the same model for POWER - the
guest just talks to the ultravisor to enter secure mode.  But we
realized that model is broken.  You're effectively advertising
availability of a guest hardware feature based on host kernel or
hardware properties.  That means if you try to migrate from a host
with the facility to one without, you won't know there's a problem
until too late.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson