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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D499C433F5 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:58366 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqFCM-0003KO-83 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:54:02 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45846) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqFB6-0001yt-Bc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:52:44 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:23906) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mqFAn-0007sv-Hs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:52:33 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1637848344; h=from:from:reply-to: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=7ocIIQZCT6Q2XJM7p8CUW8xZ32pIxOP62CciIS+Hmqs=; b=ECy0DWxsFR/1T3OWzlcwCAkE2Fdck/kHXZyjaZprxLVsyk+3IVJpWWFR+FPelQCsqw5lSQ 7jOLNT6x6AW0zp0zw1WdJshlf47bVtVEtxePvarjz99Q/CgurcEnAVUZvmHyKQi6xypphv eV/LlA2CnCz9fWlLPQ6heuGCGgrx4VY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-176-Kc-7kiSlO5OU2KU5dBYjuQ-1; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:52:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Kc-7kiSlO5OU2KU5dBYjuQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BACCC64083; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.33.36.141]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EADD272FA4; Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:52:02 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Sergio Lopez Subject: Re: SEV guest attestation Message-ID: References: <20211125071428.dpnavgxd3w4bzktr@mhamilton> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211125071428.dpnavgxd3w4bzktr@mhamilton> User-Agent: Mutt/2.1.3 (2021-09-10) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@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_H2=-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: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: afrosi@redhat.com, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, Tyler Fanelli , dinechin@redhat.com, John Ferlan Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 08:14:28AM +0100, Sergio Lopez wrote: > For SEV-SNP, this is pretty much the end of the story, because the > attestation exchange is driven by an agent inside the guest. Well, > there's also the need to have in the VM a well-known vNIC bridged to a > network that's routed to the Attestation Server, that everyone seems > to consider a given, but to me, from a CSP perspective, looks like > quite a headache. In fact, I'd go as far as to suggest this > communication should happen through an alternative channel, such as > vsock, having a proxy on the Host, but I guess that depends on the CSP > infrastructure. Allowing network connections from inside the VM, to any kind of host side mgmt LAN services is a big no for some cloud hosts. They usually desire for any guest network connectivity to be associated with a VLAN/network segment that is strictly isolated from any host mgmt LAN. OpenStack provides a virtual CCDROM for injecting cloud-init metadata as an alternative to the network based metadata REST service, since they latter often isn't deployed. Similarly for virtual filesystems, we've designed virtiofs, rather than relying on a 2nd NIC combined with NFS. We cannot assume availability of a real network device for the attestation. If one does exist fine, but there needs to be an alternative option that can be used. On a slightly different topic - if the attestation is driven from an agent inside the guest, this seems to imply we let the guest vCPUs start beforre attestation is done. Contrary to the SEV/SEV-ES where we seem to be wanting vCPUs to remain in the stopped state until attestation is complete & secrets provided. If the vCPUs are started, is there some mechanism to restrict what can be done before attestation is complete? 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 :|