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,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 6A29EC07E9A for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:03:00 +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 1A17D611AB for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:03:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1A17D611AB 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]:44586 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m3bjH-0006d6-3h for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:02:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38200) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m3bZ8-00040x-UA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:52:30 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:42533) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m3bZ6-0006CX-BG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:52:30 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1626256347; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=icg0gvPwRGJz9uuUXCiq7UXEwnGrtfXn8+lGykTSI4U=; b=ej58bkUl2qBiXz+iKOlN9KHQWrLoQBw6MlfFyhHGBtuKr7e57WVKk3l4BkoBv7CEYjlPKH mD1EMoii3rrfS+TCebc+rn6vLWLq6IFvY57JE+wIufNMJ0EYXw0uX9LHCh+yhQh7+A3BWX EP6Y5tSx9shad4Km/O9vj79MNakqHFI= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-295-_stXVqrCNe-icP_MpYtyCA-1; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 05:52:26 -0400 X-MC-Unique: _stXVqrCNe-icP_MpYtyCA-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id m9-20020a0560000089b02901362e1cd6a3so1202968wrx.13 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 02:52:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=icg0gvPwRGJz9uuUXCiq7UXEwnGrtfXn8+lGykTSI4U=; b=HTysobX+6ho+19EruZ+jYlDoc42nHTYtv/YVLlXFZHbA4LGq8LI3+R8wt+uAvh8urR tSIzzcgD4GcX4nsS5Xap69TPPc3/j5g3K9CN7YediHZZ66ml6Oxh2dNeXnFu3/hKXJJQ GrgIY/KlPF4ZoMVp1LLU4f1BD+MVmAwP7NPM9FUcgMJXMonJSbGorvmVcpdrMOMMHafc i5G20eczl8THVtrqPW4fgjn1Ae5sz1HR/xUeRMISekHNplonrNqgaSY3c4ET0i7gARXp bL7/eRXdrbK5MvN0/hMs5jSuOjpiwqzDyQXkdN4HUD5X/f1mL8UdK0n3i4vna1Tg78bt Fsag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/N9pS7xgp15FlVRzVelPe5rbTdKIOuawBtjPZ88iLJWXrZ6Sp Wx+o/4GC2FJlZFQd6LBmK0G3NsIMFJG1PyGc3+tV2guu/ViO9UN8BjYs0aYbTh+S+dLsAXfU54s JMgA/sywlhcmkG8g= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6804:: with SMTP id w4mr11543885wru.417.1626256344946; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 02:52:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGq1APKVeGWyFBIONIwgXSyQW6dds1jdrV4WQGl+a002MKBsxUMjBsprzsDXyASkBfy5FbSA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6804:: with SMTP id w4mr11543858wru.417.1626256344733; Wed, 14 Jul 2021 02:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from work-vm (cpc109021-salf6-2-0-cust453.10-2.cable.virginm.net. [82.29.237.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a64sm1529978wme.8.2021.07.14.02.52.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 14 Jul 2021 02:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:52:21 +0100 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Brijesh Singh Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) support Message-ID: References: <20210709215550.32496-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <80b92ee9-97d8-76f2-8859-06e61fe10f71@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <80b92ee9-97d8-76f2-8859-06e61fe10f71@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dgilbert@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=dgilbert@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -34 X-Spam_score: -3.5 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.7, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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 , Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Eduardo Habkost , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Connor Kuehl , Michael Roth , James Bottomley , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Dov Murik , Paolo Bonzini , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , David Gibson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" * Brijesh Singh (brijesh.singh@amd.com) wrote: > > > On 7/13/21 3:05 AM, Dov Murik wrote:> > > Particularly confusing is the `policy` attribute which is only relevant > > for SEV / SEV-ES, while there's a new `snp.policy` attribute for SNP... > > Maybe the irrelevant attributes should not be added to the tree when not > > in SNP. > > The policy fields are also applicable to the SNP. The main difference are: > > - in SEV/SEV-ES the policy is 32-bit compare to 64-bit value in SEV-SNP. > However, for SEV-SNP spec uses lower 32-bit value and higher bits are marked > reserved. > > - the bit field meaning are different Ah, I see that from the SNP ABI spec (section 4.3). That's a bit subtle; in that at the moment we select SEV or SEV-ES based on the existing guest policy flags; I think you're saying that SEV-SNP is enabled by the user explicitly. > Based on this, we can introduce a new filed 'snp-policy'. Yes, people are bound to confuse them if they're not clearly separated; although I guess whatever comes after SNP will probably share that longer field? Dave > -Brijesh > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK