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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,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 73450C433FE for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:44:57 +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 F1A6E23A84 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:44:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F1A6E23A84 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:42684 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmcMQ-0006bV-PT for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:44:54 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59564) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmcLH-00062Q-Js for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:43:43 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:21126) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmcLF-0004jy-38 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:43:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607431420; 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=9NjwKxT/SFtSebETsZkqlQUYSJrNizbHsL2kPkriiiI=; b=dA8xN791mbRIho1sXLfPqaG1E+RToJxdwTEGCeRo91wrODgviE7ZjYqXxsXyMpk8VBHzyg XsmaTIdqWAnW/+hQAIvUwJmcFvQC7B2YjqWficb7F2onMJ6jsnfS2GzS2HWTXZQT8/mMg2 714y2k3g8FY+WH7KbyPBTU4THLLkBRM= 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-114-n86cLAbHN0u98jWvn_X04A-1; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 07:43:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: n86cLAbHN0u98jWvn_X04A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42CF887950E; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gondolin (ovpn-113-5.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FC41001901; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:43:08 +0100 From: Cornelia Huck To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [for-6.0 v5 00/13] Generalize memory encryption models Message-ID: <20201208134308.2afa0e3e.cohuck@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20201208025728.GD2555@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> Organization: Red Hat GmbH MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=cohuck@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/zU8XNVbQwRALPRxAVzVqthS"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=cohuck@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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, frankja@linux.ibm.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , Marcelo Tosatti , david@redhat.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pasic@linux.ibm.com, Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, berrange@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Eduardo Habkost Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --Sig_/zU8XNVbQwRALPRxAVzVqthS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 13:57:28 +1100 David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:12:29PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > 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 wher= eby 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, and In= tel has > > > > > > its own memory encryption mechanism. POWER has an upcoming mec= hanism > > > > > > to accomplish this in a different way, using a new memory prote= ction > > > > > > level plus a small trusted ultravisor. s390 also has a protect= ed > > > > > > execution environment. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > The current code (committed or draft) for these features has ea= ch > > > > > > platform's version configured entirely differently. That doesn= '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 cases o= ther > > > > > > than SEV. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > This series is a proposal to at least partially unify configura= tion > > > > > > 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 specif= ic =20 > > > > >=20 > > > > > Can we do "securable-guest" ? > > > > > s390x also protects registers and integrity. memory is only one p= iece > > > > > 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 encryption= 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 "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. --Sig_/zU8XNVbQwRALPRxAVzVqthS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw9DWbcNiT/aowBjO3s9rk8bwL68FAl/PdNwACgkQ3s9rk8bw L68BRA//TCOIZrF+v+dXbOq+uR5phW4kslQrUTC7M7RK7pWVrmP7OJizDIuOfNj4 ev+p+5nspO1c5gYh/m/kU4qy/dwkrR/q/AdZm19lft5fRb/77NFWALdqq6ftH0YK 7IOogAYlmIo2qg1L1ETQdig4MRCNnrThf7NILYU4mHNVWj7TQkwoJEOA0ow00qze Svd5myUVZqVD3tX6AbKl/kW7/F8oY0kHUWd8zL5JkvG4OtNKrwdv+eIpPTzatTNA Xr8z5j2VDHhQRFaw/gQg1RJBRSV9eCJbXQ1SpVUdPxBz04hQxYBg8MpfPSlI/ECV +f6NTiXuUxHpguyKy4gLODcwgDIG5D81FljHYsQc2JS+M0mbqaHZcf5nb7oFhtFt sLBAOrc6NLG1LjupzExH1LaXZSxjuOEDh7Ow9bTU06DhkxXu32LRundLKcENXVv5 X4Ob1IEFt28djLiDSFJxRyj1K8Yz4vR1QVKulmTD7U9HvXXOCm2EpRLEnO4S/nHf HBk5fpvQmY8g3eG2/CdZHbc1OI0HNXpfiWCmFYnF3/cB+aVg9dNF2614vQxLTyQN tFG+4xJxrpkXizwaTnDHRuU80jCPL668UH3cetBOc5L2Q0gbR9EhbKta6X50ZFix i4B1hE3MnQh28dMTU7w2Z1hdbJLGJ3hINDXfTvoTKAhNEII+FKU= =Z85K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/zU8XNVbQwRALPRxAVzVqthS--