From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54599) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFZ-0002rp-3k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFX-0003Wi-Ha for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10815) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFX-0003WA-89 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:13:26 +0200 From: Erik Skultety Message-ID: <20190412091326.GE16137@beluga.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20190411175931.29235-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <61c415de-ac47-9818-2b06-b9e46445833f@redhat.com> <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.com> <869394fb-7b3d-cc01-7329-e931a260e73c@redhat.com> <20190412081912.GC16137@beluga.usersys.redhat.com> <77338015-015c-aaef-d522-11cabbba4214@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <77338015-015c-aaef-d522-11cabbba4214@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/i386: sev: add 'sev-max-guests' field to 'query-sev-capabilities' List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: "Singh, Brijesh" , Laszlo Ersek , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Markus Armbruster On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/04/19 10:19, Erik Skultety wrote: > >> Since this field is not specific to guest configuration, I don't think > >> it belongs in query-sev-capabilities; QEMU does not care about >1 guest. > > Neither pdh nor cert-chain are specific to the guest config. > > Sort of, they are required to start a guest, aren't they? But the Unless you're interested in the measurement, aka attestation, I don't think those are required in any way. Erik > number of guests is irrelevant. > > > I see why this > > should be better suited for query-sev, the same goes for libvirt - I think we > > shouldn't have gone with reporting the SEV platform caps in domain capabilities, > > we should have IMHO report it both in the host capabilities (platform specific > > stuff) and in domain capabilities to indicate that both libvirt and QEMU > > support the SEV feature. Having said that, we have a precedent which I think > > we might be better off with following rather than splitting the information > > among multiple commands. > > For Libvirt, sure. But I think this doesn't belong in QEMU at all. > Libvirt should just use CPUID. > > Paolo 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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 85769C10F0E for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:14:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56C08206BA for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:14:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 56C08206BA 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 ([127.0.0.1]:32950 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsGM-0003Aa-4L for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:14:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54599) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFZ-0002rp-3k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFX-0003Wi-Ha for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:33 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10815) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hEsFX-0003WA-89 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 05:13:31 -0400 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 mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A695A307D861; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from beluga.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.2.166]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0955C207; Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:13:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 11:13:26 +0200 From: Erik Skultety To: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <20190412091326.GE16137@beluga.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20190411175931.29235-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <61c415de-ac47-9818-2b06-b9e46445833f@redhat.com> <7d449ae2-6762-97c2-4930-358f34f3ef4b@amd.com> <869394fb-7b3d-cc01-7329-e931a260e73c@redhat.com> <20190412081912.GC16137@beluga.usersys.redhat.com> <77338015-015c-aaef-d522-11cabbba4214@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <77338015-015c-aaef-d522-11cabbba4214@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Fri, 12 Apr 2019 09:13:29 +0000 (UTC) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/i386: sev: add 'sev-max-guests' field to 'query-sev-capabilities' X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Laszlo Ersek , "Singh, Brijesh" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Markus Armbruster Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Message-ID: <20190412091326.2-B2N3gtXFs-3YC3fPLZGdAuUR6eXaTnbeCFvdtvoks@z> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 12/04/19 10:19, Erik Skultety wrote: > >> Since this field is not specific to guest configuration, I don't think > >> it belongs in query-sev-capabilities; QEMU does not care about >1 guest. > > Neither pdh nor cert-chain are specific to the guest config. > > Sort of, they are required to start a guest, aren't they? But the Unless you're interested in the measurement, aka attestation, I don't think those are required in any way. Erik > number of guests is irrelevant. > > > I see why this > > should be better suited for query-sev, the same goes for libvirt - I think we > > shouldn't have gone with reporting the SEV platform caps in domain capabilities, > > we should have IMHO report it both in the host capabilities (platform specific > > stuff) and in domain capabilities to indicate that both libvirt and QEMU > > support the SEV feature. Having said that, we have a precedent which I think > > we might be better off with following rather than splitting the information > > among multiple commands. > > For Libvirt, sure. But I think this doesn't belong in QEMU at all. > Libvirt should just use CPUID. > > Paolo