Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] Generalize memory encryption models

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:53 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>> Does this have any implications when probing with the 'none' machine?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure.  In your case, I guess the cpu bit would still show up
> >>>> as before, so it would tell you base feature availability, but not
> >>>> whether you can use the new configuration option.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since the HTL option is generic, you could still set it on the "none"
> >>>> machine, though it wouldn't really have any effect.  That is, if you
> >>>> could create a suitable object to point it at, which would depend on
> >>>> ... details.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The important point is that we never want the (expanded) host cpu model
> >>> look different when either specifying or not specifying the HTL
> >>> property.
> >>
> >> Ah, yes, I see your point.  So my current suggestion will satisfy
> >> that, basically it is:
> >>
> >> cpu has unpack (inc. by default) && htl specified
> >> 	=> works (allowing secure), as expected
> > 
> > ack
> > 
> >>
> >> !cpu has unpack && htl specified
> >> 	=> bails out with an error
> > 
> > ack
> > 
> >>
> >> !cpu has unpack && !htl specified
> >> 	=> works for a non-secure guest, as expected
> >> 	=> guest will fail if it attempts to go secure
> > 
> > ack, behavior just like running on older hw without unpack
> > 
> >>
> >> cpu has unpack && !htl specified
> >> 	=> works as expected for a non-secure guest (unpack feature is
> >> 	   present, but unused)
> >> 	=> secure guest may work "by accident", but only if all virtio
> >> 	   properties have the right values, which is the user's
> >> 	   problem
> >>
> >> That last case is kinda ugly, but I think it's tolerable.
> > 
> > Right, we must not affect non-secure guests, and existing secure setups
> > (e.g., older qemu machines). Will have to think about this some more,
> > but does not sound too crazy.
> 
> I severely dislike having to specify things to make PV work.
> The IOMMU is already a thorn in our side and we're working on making the
> whole ordeal completely transparent so the only requirement to make this
> work is the right machine, kernel, qemu and kernel cmd line option
> "prot_virt=1". That's why we do the reboot into PV mode in the first place.
> 
> I.e. the goal is that if customers convert compatible guests into
> protected ones and start them up on a z15 on a distro with PV support
> they can just use the guest without having to change XML or command line
> parameters.

If you're exposing new features to the guest machine, then it is usually
to be expected that XML and QEMU command line will change. Some simple
things might be hidable behind a new QEMU machine type or CPU model, but
there's a limit to how much should be hidden that way while staying sane.

I'd really expect the configuration to change when switching a guest to
a new hardware platform and wanting major new functionality to be enabled.
The XML / QEMU config is a low level instantiation of a particular feature
set, optimized for a specific machine, rather than a high level description
of ideal "best" config independent of host machine.

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 :|