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,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 BF549C433B4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:35:33 +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 57CC36145F for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:35:33 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 57CC36145F 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]:41616 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt9o-0007kc-5Y for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:35:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53186) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt6O-0005Nr-G3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:32:00 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:53617) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt6M-000466-G9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:32:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619173916; 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=c42npFIxKn8t9GgJa7U5c4cCsLDuyBpKDiO9Y9uB8YE=; b=DFqptNQgZ7H/Qv+ubViFdU0QlBh+yu2Ai5LBUC0ls7FoSoe5ag8vFNJ/lFwIPJm74eF2WN uG+ItDlVsoU3Kaw5Wx5ONsnNAL2kgnDFcY5WVQIQkEOjXhpQQL3MsdNqwp1oQYPvvIdT39 f70wZaP4uUO6i86r3WB6GPMQhVHY0Eo= 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-327-4JSBGYj9Pa2qfDaBon31CA-1; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:31:52 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4JSBGYj9Pa2qfDaBon31CA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BBC6802B5B; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from antique-laptop (unknown [10.40.195.130]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC2865C5AE; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:47 +0200 From: Pavel Hrdina To: Michal Privoznik Subject: Re: firmware selection for SEV-ES Message-ID: References: <6af8c5c7-6166-7f83-9ff0-4c24460577e2@redhat.com> <0b5d799c-6290-5585-599e-4c4f37af6202@redhat.com> <0cf69e7e-d159-6b68-0046-5449b0241634@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0cf69e7e-d159-6b68-0046-5449b0241634@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=phrdina@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ryD2sl1k6rg/HaPI" Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=phrdina@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 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_LOW=-0.7, 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: Tom Lendacky , Brijesh Singh , qemu devel list , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= , Laszlo Ersek Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --ryD2sl1k6rg/HaPI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 10:16:24AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 4/22/21 4:13 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > On 04/21/21 13:51, Pavel Hrdina wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:54:24AM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > > > Hi Brijesh, Tom, > > > >=20 > > > > in QEMU's "docs/interop/firmware.json", the @FirmwareFeature enumer= ation > > > > has a constant called @amd-sev. We should introduce an @amd-sev-es > > > > constant as well, minimally for the following reason: > > > >=20 > > > > AMD document #56421 ("SEV-ES Guest-Hypervisor Communication Block > > > > Standardization") revision 1.40 says in "4.6 System Management Mode > > > > (SMM)" that "SMM will not be supported in this version of the > > > > specification". This is reflected in OVMF, so an OVMF binary that's > > > > supposed to run in a SEV-ES guest must be built without "-D > > > > SMM_REQUIRE". (As a consequence, such a binary should be built also > > > > without "-D SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE".) > > > >=20 > > > > At the level of "docs/interop/firmware.json", this means that manag= ement > > > > applications should be enabled to look for the @amd-sev-es feature = (and > > > > it also means, for OS distributors, that any firmware descriptor > > > > exposing @amd-sev-es will currently have to lack all three of: > > > > @requires-smm, @secure-boot, @enrolled-keys). > > > >=20 > > > > I have three questions: > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > (1) According to > > > > , SEV-ES is > > > > explicitly requested in the domain XML via setting bit#2 in the "po= licy" > > > > element. > > > >=20 > > > > Can this setting be used by libvirt to look for such a firmware > > > > descriptor that exposes @amd-sev-es? > > >=20 > > > Hi Laszlo and all, > > >=20 > > > Currently we use only when selecting > > > firmware to make sure that it supports @amd-sev. Since we already hav= e a > > > place in the VM XML where users can configure amd-sev-as we can use t= hat > > > information when selecting correct firmware that should be used for t= he > > > VM. > >=20 > > Thanks! > >=20 > > Should we file a libvirtd Feature Request (where?) for recognizing the > > @amd-sev-es feature flag? >=20 > Yes, we should. We can use RedHat bugzilla for that. Laszlo - do you want= to > do it yourself or shall I help you with that? This BZ looks like it's already tracking support for amd-sev-es [1]. Pavel. [1] --ryD2sl1k6rg/HaPI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEcbzs91ho/coWWY7aUi1kczAH4YwFAmCCohMACgkQUi1kczAH 4YwawhAA1hvvGC108DtUbc93B4Qq8k66SKxx5RnK9xf1btj4KUl5B9NF3pLDcQFY /Vruts6WQQkOomcwUHzBArwQWXHN8ANsOnz1qw6FS6xXXeFb6J/CAmlYIAvY3G7F Vr7rQuk1p6M/af6/yXp2ccUjoJCmF4H120PAmFZiyvAAvYhw8TKv6B0/5pb/RzuS 8GDq7T1k5AWvtR2dyQ0coQljAocnmW8fgtTpGIE1VBHPZ0vIBk/gvrY6YVbi9Gtk WkgsrDMft1h8LljDBYoLS+oV0xB0fZLIcGVM5QJj0G32aoEIForDXqLwv+q2y6M9 Lc5eVubdeeOk8DOAc4fi2xqXRVXp2LsH3AAa5tlkUwsfBfqjXc4A2Euu48Nh5v9h EPTmviM1aKa7pVPH7M/d+3lq/zu2QQGO+/Zp9migL0MmRDsNNhiwTu0+9CtJ4HfT jRsyaNZVHWeiQc2t6gHaQ4MIoUzM8myAuzkPcPwcdImv8QNHCMEl2B2xr8c4ppNi ekYPwmg0xw/hPAgElxQ++c0iRZEcMbQwiPOjlf7aSfb5f/3CrVP2UTRniqBJWDE1 Z61VMv3ttRRXdNNxAKWzpCf7cFtmwo19qhQR6kks/JxWESYc7x61Vwzkf/Drq4he tYTztBOQPsc/88g4Hp/YlyQ1TSwn8OlXEh77IGa8DXKi3ndchpA= =HQM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ryD2sl1k6rg/HaPI--