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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 306C0C433B4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:33:21 +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 9FBA06141C for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:33:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9FBA06141C 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]:36996 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt7f-0005sV-GQ for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:33:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53002) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt5g-0004cd-T7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:31:16 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:40301) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZt5c-0003jX-OR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:31:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619173871; 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=RknhiYue7JiEKesRWxGLROK3VNzuUEZg1FoGuLjfdAI=; b=ajSa/l3LvN3EhsBavxEutWU442M8+0rlfBs91TXUoBRWTsG8Q2y26ffcoGTdn6bg76IlE7 RwbZzyMFVMcG7SFEtk7HY4nbhnvh/82IyfhLk6bIIf1j2HiGPAkeetpA9ZWr/Ez0COsBPb MUXhulaoUtBmTz5sFqA+MdxC8Y7RJ/0= 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-562-9Do7zXQDM0OgUgRstnoZdQ-1; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:31:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 9Do7zXQDM0OgUgRstnoZdQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 469E7343A2; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:31:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-115-2.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989A319703; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:31:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: firmware selection for SEV-ES To: Michal Privoznik , Pavel Hrdina References: <6af8c5c7-6166-7f83-9ff0-4c24460577e2@redhat.com> <0b5d799c-6290-5585-599e-4c4f37af6202@redhat.com> <0cf69e7e-d159-6b68-0046-5449b0241634@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 12:31:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0cf69e7e-d159-6b68-0046-5449b0241634@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=lersek@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, 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._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 04/23/21 10:16, Michal Privoznik wrote: > 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? Please go ahead, I appreciate your help! :) Thanks! Laszlo