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 35CCDC433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E06206A2 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726159AbgFDXbe (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:31:34 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:62924 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725920AbgFDXbe (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:31:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 054N0WWo141828; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:31:09 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31f9dqsuf5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 19:31:09 -0400 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 054N2x3E151416; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 19:31:08 -0400 Received: from ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (ba.79.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.121.186]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 31f9dqsuey-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 19:31:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 054NV6tH001464; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:08 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.18]) by ppma03wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 31bf48yq5y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 04 Jun 2020 23:31:08 +0000 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.236]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 054NV5KO30212604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:05 GMT Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C249BBE051; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A905FBE054; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morokweng.localdomain (unknown [9.160.104.193]) by b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 23:31:02 +0000 (GMT) References: <20200521034304.340040-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <87tuzr5ts5.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> <20200604062124.GG228651@umbus.fritz.box> <87r1uu1opr.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: David Gibson , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, 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 , Richard Henderson Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/18] Refactor configuration of guest memory protection In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 20:30:58 -0300 Message-ID: <87pnae1k99.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=2020-06-04_13:2020-06-04,2020-06-04 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2006040157 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Paolo Bonzini writes: > On 04/06/20 23:54, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> QEMU could always create a PEF object, and if the command line defines >> one, it will correspond to it. And if the command line doesn't define one, >> then it would also work because the PEF object is already there. > > How would you start a non-protected VM? In the case of POWER PEF even with the machine property and the pef-guest object it's not guaranteed that the VM will be protected. They allow the possibility of the VM being protected. The decision lies with the guest. The Linux kernel will request being moved to "secure memory" when the `svm=on` parameter is passed in the kernel command line. To start a VM that doesn't have the possibility of being protected, one would simply not use the guest-memory-protection property (or host-trust-limitation, if that ends up being its name). Regardless of whether there's a pef-guest object. Sorry if the above is pedantic. I just want to make sure we're communicating clearly. > Currently it's the "-machine" > property that decides that, and the argument requires an id > corresponding to "-object". If there's only one object, there's no need to specify its id. I have the feeling I didn't understand your point. I hope these answers clarify what I'm suggesting. -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center