From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF39B1172A for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745318113; cv=none; b=MsMjTm51mVq53RkumAPADui5vyJYXgxNT7Z6rOUkDYN99nKYrD34b0KryRipSqv7VqR7Ll6+GkvLgJ83DGJIyR2Fff+vonf1CgTWkH52JIgj3gWu/UqNrHNIZJ7KQgPpAKST694enR+Tr+vUald8gYW9o70b8RJHVaXhyT0jigk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745318113; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fJmS7DaQCdW8OZHWXIWFSA+/FIZZJqvgYDFcvd+7tmc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=QsrfB47O50oX3tz9hg+Tk1gf9dLRTQdg/D56tFBialc9VLPTYPI0itkP4MEm4uPCEHK4n2bbmc+HzdcHb+2CCxJSh2q6KP9a8nNUqgSe6RjS98gnC+b0aDn/d8WRfUYOhIsuGGvttP5ctVN6FjeyiM5a2nRk7AOm1pa+m1mqHJo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=fgiGRM2u; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="fgiGRM2u" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1745318110; h=from:from:reply-to: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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XBfQorWXwxVo2dkZWJYUi8B3tqV5MU4MWr06bgnNJog=; b=fgiGRM2uAtTvGZfbWZNHycXud8fb5XHW4hWuVXZkMhKla9M19HItCA3CaH9uUVJo7D1eUL 8ItUdxJFktUzOTarvliu5d3PkdMEFJ4kX2uQNQZ5WbsJp/V5UUhLQaC4HViFwQuY5xRwoA 7j7BUUQzV4uItukFW10ilNSOH84JTFY= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-578-CqT5zbV6P5aYud12afNhDQ-1; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 06:35:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: CqT5zbV6P5aYud12afNhDQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: CqT5zbV6P5aYud12afNhDQ_1745318108 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12670180036E; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.105]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6686B18001DD; Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:35:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:35:02 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: Tom Lendacky , coconut-svsm@lists.linux.dev, svsm-devel@coconut-svsm.dev Subject: Re: [svsm-devel] Potential project on implementing AMD SEV emulation in QEMU Message-ID: Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= References: <06e71552-c890-1577-8967-4d44fb8bdf6b@amd.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: coconut-svsm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.14 (2025-02-20) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: QHiXGyj8y_mfgaQQmJTEDcn9Hq_lVN1sjYZW9ZHgWsE_1745318108 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 12:32:18PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 08:56:51AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 22:14, Tom Lendacky wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4/17/25 10:26, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > > > > yesterday in the Coconut-SVSM community call we talked about a > > > > > potential project with the University of Pisa to emulate AMD > > > > > SEV/SEV-ES/SEV-SNP support in QEMU. > > > > > > > > > > Joerg rightly suggested having a step-by-step approach, supporting SEV > > > > > initially, as supporting SEV-SNP directly might be too much for a > > > > > master's thesis (about 6 months of work). > > > > > > > > > > We wondered if you knew of any attempts already made in this regard, > > > > > > > > Nothing that I'm aware of. > > > > > > > > > but especially if you think it's a feasible thing. > > > > > > > > Anything is possible I guess, but I'm not sure what it would take to > > > > accomplish that. Attestation would tell you if you're on real hardware > > > > vs emulated hardware. > > > > > > As I wrote to Dionna, I did not explain the ultimate goal well: > > > Test/develop SVSM and guest OS interaction without having the hardware in place. > > > > > > So that's why IMO it's perfectly fine for attestation to be > > > unsuccessful, plus I don't think it's even necessary to implement any > > > encryption. > > > > IMHO attestation is required to make this fully usable even for SVSM > > dev. eg consider the work underway for persistent vTPM, which relies > > on attestation during SVSM. It would also be required for any of the > > guest OS / application layer to test/devel SEV(SNP) support fully. > > > > I would consider attestation in scope for any QEMU impl, but I agree > > that encryption of memory is not likely a priority. > > Yeah, I agree with that, by “unsuccessful attestation” I meant that it is > perfectly fine for the attestation process to tell you that you are not on a > real hw, but emulated. > > Anyway, I agree that we should emulate the generation of the attestation > report, obviously signed with a self-generated certificate (or even > unsigned, but I don't know if this is expected). Yep, attestation should be able to work, provided applications that validate attestation reports have a way to configure an alternative root certs instead of AMD's genuine ones. 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 :|