From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brijesh Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/23] hmp: display memory encryption support in 'info kvm' Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 07:46:44 -0600 Message-ID: <3e6cf550-9bd8-daa7-e54a-d390354ffcb0@amd.com> References: <20180129174132.108925-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20180129174132.108925-14-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <20180201175802.GK2457@work-vm> <7c3c7a89-04ef-016e-c9a5-4f4d4be1c449@amd.com> <20180201200442.GQ2457@work-vm> <20180202130817.GE15403@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Edgar E. Iglesias" , Peter Maydell , brijesh.singh@amd.com, Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Tom Lendacky , Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Paolo Bonzini To: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P._Berrang=c3=a9?= , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180202130817.GE15403@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel2=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 2/2/18 7:08 AM, Daniel P. Berrang=C3=A9 wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:04:43PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> * Brijesh Singh (brijesh.singh@amd.com) wrote: >>> >>> On 2/1/18 11:58 AM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >>>> * Brijesh Singh (brijesh.singh@amd.com) wrote: >>>>> update 'info kvm' to display the memory encryption support. >>>>> >>>>> (qemu) info kvm >>>>> kvm support: enabled >>>>> memory encryption: disabled >>>> As Markus said, this should be split qmp/hmp; but something else to >>>> think about is whether this is a boolean or needs to be an enum; do >>>> you have one version of encryption or are we going to need to flag up >>>> versions or the features of the encryption? >>> In future I could see us providing encrypted state status when we >>> implement SEV-ES support, something like >>> >>> (qemu) info kvm >>> kvm support: enabled >>> memory encryption: enabled >>> cpu register state: encrypted >>> >>> but so far I do not see need to provide the version string. If user >>> wants to know the SEV version then it can open /dev/sev device to get >>> platform status and more. >> Yes, I was worried a bit more about how general that was going to be >> or whether we're collecting a lot of architecture specific fields here. >> So I wondered, if it was an enum, whether that would be come: >> >> memory encryption: none >> >> memory encryption: SEV >> >> memory encryption: SEV-ES >> >> (I'm not too sure whether that's better or not, just a suggestion) > I wonder if it is is even appropriate to have under 'info kvm', since > 'info kvm' is architecture independant and SEV is specific to AMD x86_64 > only. It might suggest an 'info sev' command is better ? The reason I kept under 'info kvm' is because now KVM has a ioctl for memory encryption operation, I like your suggestion for=C2=A0 introducing 'info sev' -- the command can be used to provide additional SEV specific details (e.g SEV FW state, SEV FW version, SEV active policy etc). > > Regards, > Daniel