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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 AFE22C2BB40 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6808E23741 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727498AbgLQLpB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 06:45:01 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:43427 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726890AbgLQLo7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2020 06:44:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1608205412; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=QyIqB23JwnZYHGAWkNFaM9pV1Ag2jMMOyHckGdG4sJU=; b=Mkk435NXIiajN3OSHm3OfdH5H+/U745weKetiCeZ4Yrrdm5hcAmqkTOCLlvBBxDEuwP1kT 5sUnao7FAJo2LVZO1OM7xGXAKLzwvAUnmoroWShRj2jrohjcP66TTCq3WGv6Ko0Rm1RQM+ eYqok7qGdfyQ8h+4s6j7D3le+K25WHw= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-574-ep45ulrANZOTpRE_DowVqg-1; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 06:43:29 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ep45ulrANZOTpRE_DowVqg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1A2D800D55; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-176.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.176]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC9D1A262; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 11:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:43:13 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: David Gibson Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Christian Borntraeger , pair@us.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, brijesh.singh@amd.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Eduardo Habkost , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, rth@twiddle.net, thuth@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Marcelo Tosatti , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcel Apfelbaum , david@redhat.com, Richard Henderson , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [for-6.0 v5 00/13] Generalize memory encryption models Message-ID: <20201217124313.0b321ecf.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20201217062116.GK310465@yekko.fritz.box> References: <20201204054415.579042-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20201204140205.66e205da.cohuck@redhat.com> <20201204130727.GD2883@work-vm> <20201204141229.688b11e4.cohuck@redhat.com> <20201208025728.GD2555@yekko.fritz.box> <20201208134308.2afa0e3e.cohuck@redhat.com> <20201217062116.GK310465@yekko.fritz.box> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/R0kL8VplyVYXrejI1PMf7M_"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/R0kL8VplyVYXrejI1PMf7M_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:21:16 +1100 David Gibson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:43:08PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:57:28 +1100 > > David Gibson wrote: > > =20 > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:12:29PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: =20 > > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 13:07:27 +0000 > > > > "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" wrote: > > > > =20 > > > > > * Cornelia Huck (cohuck@redhat.com) wrote: =20 > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:06:50 +0100 > > > > > > Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > > On 04.12.20 06:44, David Gibson wrote: =20 > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > AMD's SEV implements this with in-cpu memory encryption, an= d Intel has > > > > > > > > its own memory encryption mechanism. POWER has an upcoming= mechanism > > > > > > > > to accomplish this in a different way, using a new memory p= rotection > > > > > > > > level plus a small trusted ultravisor. s390 also has a pro= tected > > > > > > > > execution environment. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > The current code (committed or draft) for these features ha= s each > > > > > > > > platform's version configured entirely differently. That d= oesn't seem > > > > > > > > ideal for users, or particularly for management layers. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > AMD SEV introduces a notionally generic machine option > > > > > > > > "machine-encryption", but it doesn't actually cover any cas= es other > > > > > > > > than SEV. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > This series is a proposal to at least partially unify confi= guration > > > > > > > > for these mechanisms, by renaming and generalizing AMD's > > > > > > > > "memory-encryption" property. It is replaced by a > > > > > > > > "securable-guest-memory" property pointing to a platform sp= ecific =20 > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Can we do "securable-guest" ? > > > > > > > s390x also protects registers and integrity. memory is only o= ne piece > > > > > > > of the puzzle and what we protect might differ from platform = to=20 > > > > > > > platform. > > > > > > > =20 > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > I agree. Even technologies that currently only do memory encryp= tion may > > > > > > be enhanced with more protections later. =20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > There's already SEV-ES patches onlist for this on the SEV side. > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > Perhaps 'confidential guest' is actually what we need, since the > > > > > marketing folks seem to have started labelling this whole idea > > > > > 'confidential computing'. =20 > > >=20 > > > That's not a bad idea, much as I usually hate marketing terms. But it > > > does seem to be becoming a general term for this style of thing, and > > > it doesn't overlap too badly with other terms ("secure" and > > > "protected" are also used for hypervisor-from-guest and > > > guest-from-guest protection). > > > =20 > > > > It's more like a 'possibly confidential guest', though. =20 > > >=20 > > > Hmm. What about "Confidential Guest Facility" or "Confidential Guest > > > Mechanism"? The implication being that the facility is there, whether > > > or not the guest actually uses it. > > > =20 > >=20 > > "Confidential Guest Enablement"? The others generally sound fine to me > > as well, though; not sure if "Facility" might be a bit confusing, as > > that term is already a bit overloaded. =20 >=20 > Well, "facility" is a bit overloaded, but IMO "enablement" is even > more so. I think I'll go with "confidential guest support" in the > next spin. >=20 Works for me. --Sig_/R0kL8VplyVYXrejI1PMf7M_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl/bRFEACgkQ3s9rk8bw L68CLRAAp36nl9zlR8I/XeSW6EAJQS+9P2Ose7DKrowr6/vkXSSOtHl9cv/6TDiU V5tOO3CbItyzBPxw5w7ezy88bgYOxgijmr4MHs4nC0YqtzYYv4vCeEIKmT99rgy4 q/nCkRGY0C+cnSuehjLgPIC9wqFuOjrgui4edY1+eNxe311QZR/XuAfSGs4RJ0VB UiT7+xdqiygzNTgiLttpw+msZrj9lKLmad5LnUiEvVvzbxFPtWWqbBisWS7M7D49 58yYobJr/o/Rh77mqNFDzgBiWmYvnmi2ukAMyLSUl+g0fGMKZzu1CVjPE0wg1jkX n8B7qkpZrTC27HqzUR+r37fuBpWgkqBmiUXzyayn4z3Z+HoY4Io2ipfYOK62PRLm +0j6Tgw3cIBHY+NscF4f83iNQRrxqqZia9PWdncfdwJC/JIkNnV9hIABTkm4lC2L GPoXS0X6/6Q5dXILqrSPJUuaWlF3P3/m3ehAHLqurs9hirutfTR5MPWREcy1oBxm kGqCaXUO/faCGGoJkYdKot5UpysuL87RBo7EgBo3HL8V/VfUlo+6CJeiPQWbDKw9 l9z3kZfbFzl2FrJmxfuJapVlRCfSzpjVCebMDl4CSjP+Dax170lAt9bX/0CgdL8u z8c8aFVhACPWFRw8CJaqldSznQsISXj5BnPHvGTSwYTZRnNH1AA= =XYiF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/R0kL8VplyVYXrejI1PMf7M_--