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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 E96BEC4338F for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (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 97F496023E for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:14:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 97F496023E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F67489C85; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:14:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 70227 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at gabe; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:49 UTC Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04E8C897D7; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f26310039d0ba97aac93c10.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f26:3100:39d0:ba97:aac9:3c10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 5FF7A1EC0505; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:38:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1629038311; 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: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=jL5qXq5tPSUlQog/FJ5eZ1GT2YpJvvVnQmTTUk0cbrA=; b=Ynjh7QDJnobQuRzRBtXZMflPEf0vTQxZ/1e/DI2MnZmP0BU3+0pTK5ZZQ5Gk5RnrPuYHa6 IdpdAyOEUiLJZd8HI6wSzceOtBbAWAY0K9LHdKOg+Qfc/RBmkhxNql4Enc7Gc4LTKOJnaI 0ETWtaeGc2m89ri2xInjGo/yEh1iYis= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:39:09 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , Joerg Roedel , Andi Kleen , Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , Tianyu Lan , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:13:00 +0000 X-BeenThere: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for AMD gfx List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: amd-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "amd-gfx" On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor > thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON. What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be encrypted using the AMD's confidential guest technology but the HV tells the guest that it is not running on an AMD SVM HV but something else? Is that even an actual use case? Or am I way off? I know we have talked about this in the past but this still sounds insane. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([5.9.137.197]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1mFHHd-00FKw8-Pt for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:45 +0000 Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:39:09 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tom Lendacky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , Joerg Roedel , Andi Kleen , Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , Tianyu Lan , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Joerg Roedel On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor > thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON. What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be encrypted using the AMD's confidential guest technology but the HV tells the guest that it is not running on an AMD SVM HV but something else? Is that even an actual use case? Or am I way off? I know we have talked about this in the past but this still sounds insane. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec 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=-3.6 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 B0370C4338F for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (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 5AFCD6113A for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 5AFCD6113A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.linux-foundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A2D140302; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AToyVgbg6LdS; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010:104::8cd3:938]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8857740301; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F06C001A; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4531DC000E for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2154D80E2E for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=alien8.de Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hB4GBG71FKad for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:11c2::b:1457]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A2F80E2C for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f26310039d0ba97aac93c10.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f26:3100:39d0:ba97:aac9:3c10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 5FF7A1EC0505; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:38:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1629038311; 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: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=jL5qXq5tPSUlQog/FJ5eZ1GT2YpJvvVnQmTTUk0cbrA=; b=Ynjh7QDJnobQuRzRBtXZMflPEf0vTQxZ/1e/DI2MnZmP0BU3+0pTK5ZZQ5Gk5RnrPuYHa6 IdpdAyOEUiLJZd8HI6wSzceOtBbAWAY0K9LHdKOg+Qfc/RBmkhxNql4Enc7Gc4LTKOJnaI 0ETWtaeGc2m89ri2xInjGo/yEh1iYis= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:39:09 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , x86@kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, Joerg Roedel , Tianyu Lan , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-BeenThere: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues for Linux IOMMU support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: iommu-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Sender: "iommu" On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor > thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON. What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be encrypted using the AMD's confidential guest technology but the HV tells the guest that it is not running on an AMD SVM HV but something else? Is that even an actual use case? Or am I way off? I know we have talked about this in the past but this still sounds insane. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu 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=-3.6 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 E1414C4338F for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 2C2D561151 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 14:39:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 2C2D561151 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=alien8.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Gng0n2gntz3bhl for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:39:21 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dkim header.b=Ynjh7QDJ; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=alien8.de (client-ip=5.9.137.197; helo=mail.skyhub.de; envelope-from=bp@alien8.de; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=alien8.de header.i=@alien8.de header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dkim header.b=Ynjh7QDJ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.skyhub.de (mail.skyhub.de [5.9.137.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Gng0066rfz302N for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:38:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: from zn.tnic (p200300ec2f26310039d0ba97aac93c10.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:ec:2f26:3100:39d0:ba97:aac9:3c10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.skyhub.de (SuperMail on ZX Spectrum 128k) with ESMTPSA id 5FF7A1EC0505; Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:38:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alien8.de; s=dkim; t=1629038311; 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: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=jL5qXq5tPSUlQog/FJ5eZ1GT2YpJvvVnQmTTUk0cbrA=; b=Ynjh7QDJnobQuRzRBtXZMflPEf0vTQxZ/1e/DI2MnZmP0BU3+0pTK5ZZQ5Gk5RnrPuYHa6 IdpdAyOEUiLJZd8HI6wSzceOtBbAWAY0K9LHdKOg+Qfc/RBmkhxNql4Enc7Gc4LTKOJnaI 0ETWtaeGc2m89ri2xInjGo/yEh1iYis= Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:39:09 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Tom Lendacky Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] x86/sev: Add an x86 version of prot_guest_has() Message-ID: References: <7d55bac0cf2e73f53816bce3a3097877ed9663f3.1628873970.git.thomas.lendacky@amd.com> <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4710eb91-d054-7b31-5106-09e3e54bba9e@amd.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Brijesh Singh , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-graphics-maintainer@vmware.com, Joerg Roedel , Tianyu Lan , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote: > It's not a cross-vendor thing as opposed to a KVM or other hypervisor > thing where the family doesn't have to be reported as AMD or HYGON. What would be the use case? A HV starts a guest which is supposed to be encrypted using the AMD's confidential guest technology but the HV tells the guest that it is not running on an AMD SVM HV but something else? Is that even an actual use case? Or am I way off? I know we have talked about this in the past but this still sounds insane. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette