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]

Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:54:39 -0500
From:   Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     brijesh.singh@....com, 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 09/29/2017 09:41 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?
> 

In production, you do not want to run encrypted guest on an unencrypted
hypervisor -- I was thinking about the debug environment. We can start
with mem_encrypt=sme and if we see the need for 'sev' arg then we can
extend it later.

I am working on the patch and will send for the review. thanks

-Brijesh