Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] COCONUT Secure VM Service Module for SEV-SNP

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:29:29PM -0700, Marc Orr wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 1:05 PM James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course we could start changing linux-svsm to support the same
> > > goals, but I think the end result will not be very different from
> > > what COCONUT looks now.
> >
> > That's entirely possible, so what are the chances of combining the
> > projects now so we don't get a split in community effort?
> 
> Very cool to see this announcement and read the discussion!
> 
> One SVSM will be better for Google too. Specifically:
> - One hypervisor/SVSM startup sequence is easier for us to get working
> - One SVSM is easier to test/qualify/deploy
> - Generally speaking, things will be easier for us if all SNP VMs
> start running off of the same "first mutable code". I.e., the same
> SVSM, UEFI, etc.

I agree with this from the Red Hat side. We would prefer there to
be a standard / common SVSM used by all [OSS] hypervisors/clouds,
to reduce permutations that guest OS vendors/tenants have to
develop/test/deploy against.

It looks like even developing one high quality feature rich SVSM
is a non-trivial undertaking, so I agree with James that it is
undesirable to divide community resources across many competing
impls, without a compelling justification.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|