Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] i386/sev: update query-sev QAPI format to handle SEV-SNP

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

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:14:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com> writes:
> 
> > Most of the current 'query-sev' command is relevant to both legacy
> > SEV/SEV-ES guests and SEV-SNP guests, with 2 exceptions:
> >
> >   - 'policy' is a 64-bit field for SEV-SNP, not 32-bit, and
> >     the meaning of the bit positions has changed
> >   - 'handle' is not relevant to SEV-SNP
> >
> > To address this, this patch adds a new 'sev-type' field that can be
> > used as a discriminator to select between SEV and SEV-SNP-specific
> > fields/formats without breaking compatibility for existing management
> > tools (so long as management tools that add support for launching
> > SEV-SNP guest update their handling of query-sev appropriately).
> 
> Technically a compatibility break: query-sev can now return an object
> that whose member @policy has different meaning, and also lacks @handle.
> 
> Matrix:
> 
>                             Old mgmt app    New mgmt app
>     Old QEMU, SEV/SEV-ES       good            good(1)
>     New QEMU, SEV/SEV-ES       good(2)         good
>     New QEMU, SEV-SNP           bad(3)         good
> 
> Notes:
> 
> (1) As long as the management application can cope with absent member
> @sev-type.
> 
> (2) As long as the management application ignores unknown member
> @sev-type.
> 
> (3) Management application may choke on missing member @handle, or
> worse, misinterpret member @policy.  Can only happen when something
> other than the management application created the SEV-SNP guest (or the
> user somehow made the management application create one even though it
> doesn't know how, say with CLI option passthrough, but that's always
> fragile, and I wouldn't worry about it here).
> 
> I think (1) and (2) are reasonable.  (3) is an issue for management
> applications that support attaching to existing guests.  Thoughts?

IIUC you can only reach scenario (3) if you have created a guest
using '-object sev-snp-guest', which is a new feature introduced
in patch 2.

IOW, scenario (3)  old mgmt app + new QEMU + sev-snp guest does
not exist as a combination. Thus the (bad) field is actually (n/a)

So I believe this proposed change is acceptable in all scenarios
with existing deployed usage, as well as all newly introduced
scenarios.

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 :|