[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7fa6b074-6a62-3f8e-f047-c63851ebf7c9@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:19:46 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 25/35] KVM: x86: Update __get_sregs() / __set_sregs()
to support SEV-ES
On 9/14/20 4:37 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 03:15:39PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>>
>> Since many of the registers used by the SEV-ES are encrypted and cannot
>> be read or written, adjust the __get_sregs() / __set_sregs() to only get
>> or set the registers being tracked (efer, cr0, cr4 and cr8) once the VMSA
>> is encrypted.
>
> Is there an actual use case for writing said registers after the VMSA is
> encrypted? Assuming there's a separate "debug mode" and live migration has
> special logic, can KVM simply reject the ioctl() if guest state is protected?
Yeah, I originally had it that way but one of the folks looking at live
migration for SEV-ES thought it would be easier given the way Qemu does
things. But I think it's easy enough to batch the tracking registers into
the VMSA state that is being transferred during live migration. Let me
check that out and likely the SET ioctl() could just skip all the regs.
Thanks,
Tom
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists