linux-kernel - Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 02/17] x86/mm: Add Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170929144146.ctidwarilxntpu3i@pd.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:41:46 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Part1 PATCH v5 02/17] x86/mm: Add Secure Encrypted
 Virtualization (SEV) support

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 07:28:47AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> if we are adding a chicken bits then I think we should do it for both
> "smeonly" and "sevonly". We can boot host OS with SME disabled and SEV
> enabled, and still be able to create the SEV guest from the hypervisor.

Sure, but is that a real use case? I mean, who would want to run
encrypted guests on an unencrypted hypervisor?

> How about this ?
> 
> mem_encrypt=on     both SME and SEV enabled
> mem_encrypt=sev    only SEV enabled
> mem_encrypt=sme   only SME enabled
> mem_encrypt=off     neither SME/SEV are enabled

I like those short mnemonics, ACK. Less typing is always good.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--