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:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 13:08:17 -0800
From:   Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Thomas <thomas.lendacky@....com>, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        tj@...nel.org, lizefan@...wei.com, joro@...tes.org, corbet@....net,
        Brijesh <brijesh.singh@....com>, Jon <jon.grimm@....com>,
        Eric <eric.vantassell@....com>, gingell@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 0/2] KVM: SVM: Cgroup support for SVM SEV ASIDs

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:18:45PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> 
> > > > Looping Janosch and Christian back into the thread.                           
> > > >                                                                               
> > > > I interpret this suggestion as                                                
> > > > encryption.{sev,sev_es,keyids}.{max,current,events} for AMD and Intel         
> > > 
> > > I think it makes sense to use encryption_ids instead of simply encryption, that
> > > way it's clear the cgroup is accounting ids as opposed to restricting what
> > > techs can be used on yes/no basis.
> > > 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > > > offerings, which was my thought on this as well.                              
> > > >                                                                               
> > > > Certainly the kernel could provide a single interface for all of these and    
> > > > key value pairs depending on the underlying encryption technology but it      
> > > > seems to only introduce additional complexity in the kernel in string         
> > > > parsing that can otherwise be avoided.  I think we all agree that a single    
> > > > interface for all encryption keys or one-value-per-file could be done in      
> > > > the kernel and handled by any userspace agent that is configuring these       
> > > > values.                                                                       
> > > >                                                                               
> > > > I think Vipin is adding a root level file that describes how many keys we     
> > > > have available on the platform for each technology.  So I think this comes    
> > > > down to, for example, a single encryption.max file vs                         
> > > > encryption.{sev,sev_es,keyid}.max.  SEV and SEV-ES ASIDs are provisioned      
> > > 
> > > Are you suggesting that the cgroup omit "current" and "events"?  I agree there's
> > > no need to enumerate platform total, but not knowing how many of the allowed IDs
> > > have been allocated seems problematic.
> > > 
> > 
> > We will be showing encryption_ids.{sev,sev_es}.{max,current}
> > I am inclined to not provide "events" as I am not using it, let me know
> > if this file is required, I can provide it then.
> > 
> > I will provide an encryption_ids.{sev,sev_es}.stat file, which shows
> > total available ids on the platform. This one will be useful for
> > scheduling jobs in the cloud infrastructure based on total supported
> > capacity.
> > 
> 
> Makes sense.  I assume the stat file is only at the cgroup root level 
> since it would otherwise be duplicating its contents in every cgroup under 
> it.  Probably not very helpful for child cgroup to see stat = 509 ASIDs 
> but max = 100 :)

Yes, only at root.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ