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=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 6651BC433B4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:17:30 +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 9EFD361409 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:17:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9EFD361409 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]:37986 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZr0C-0003Km-BH for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:17:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53296) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZqzQ-0002si-8G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:16:40 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:22747) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZqzO-0007MM-78 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:16:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619165796; 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:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YK7gdE+SszGLq1K6exd92cAb6aqGxQye/Jt6sOzJCpk=; b=N4ty3jSxQ4EzcP8d7HiiILbWCxFdBdz5AcY/zKReghsXSY2S1EGu9YzkUFuNHH5krDVWO6 KA4kENE2VCpN+9hY5SiYWQxUazqyWFhZ/TpcumgDkZveusv0bCBZQ2+dmFqw39SupPyhr+ pQ6IJ12dGAmRIjlLg5Ib62vlQ4w/PiM= 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-225-iVGOeqcvN1KvFI0o5F5-pw-1; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 04:16:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: iVGOeqcvN1KvFI0o5F5-pw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69159817475; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.40.195.9] (unknown [10.40.195.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 660A8687DB; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: firmware selection for SEV-ES To: Laszlo Ersek , Pavel Hrdina References: <6af8c5c7-6166-7f83-9ff0-4c24460577e2@redhat.com> <0b5d799c-6290-5585-599e-4c4f37af6202@redhat.com> From: Michal Privoznik Message-ID: <0cf69e7e-d159-6b68-0046-5449b0241634@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:16:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0b5d799c-6290-5585-599e-4c4f37af6202@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mprivozn@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=mprivozn@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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 , =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P=2e_Berrang=c3=a9?= , Brijesh Singh , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu devel list Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" 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, >>> >>> in QEMU's "docs/interop/firmware.json", the @FirmwareFeature enumeration >>> has a constant called @amd-sev. We should introduce an @amd-sev-es >>> constant as well, minimally for the following reason: >>> >>> 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".) >>> >>> At the level of "docs/interop/firmware.json", this means that management >>> 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). >>> >>> I have three questions: >>> >>> >>> (1) According to >>> , SEV-ES is >>> explicitly requested in the domain XML via setting bit#2 in the "policy" >>> element. >>> >>> Can this setting be used by libvirt to look for such a firmware >>> descriptor that exposes @amd-sev-es? >> >> Hi Laszlo and all, >> >> Currently we use only when selecting >> firmware to make sure that it supports @amd-sev. Since we already have a >> place in the VM XML where users can configure amd-sev-as we can use that >> information when selecting correct firmware that should be used for the >> VM. > > Thanks! > > Should we file a libvirtd Feature Request (where?) for recognizing the > @amd-sev-es feature flag? 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? Michal