linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core 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:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 20:11:57 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, jgross@...e.com, jmattson@...gle.com,
        joro@...tes.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, knsathya@...nel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, sdeep@...are.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 00/29] TDX Guest: TDX core support

On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 04:50:08PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:48:31AM +1300, Kai Huang wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting even for now we can start to put TDX host support to
> > > arch/x86/coco/tdx/ ?
> > 
> > That's exactly what I'm suggesting. The TDX stuff is not upstream so
> > nothing's cast in stone yet. This way there won't be any unpleasant code
> > movements later.
> 
> I strongly prefer we put the guest and host code in separate directories.  Both
> TDX and SEV are big enough that they'll benefit from splitting up files, having
> to fight over file names or tag all files with guest/host will get annoying.
> 
> I do like the idea of arch/x86/coco though.  The most straightforward approach
> would be:
> 
>   arch/x86/coco/guest/
>   arch/x86/coco/host/
> 
> but that doesn't provide any extensibility on the host virtualization side, e.g.
> to land non-coco, non-KVM-specific host virtualization code (we have a potential
> use case for this).  If that happens, we'd end up with x86 KVM having code and
> dependencies split across:
> 
>   arch/x86/coco/host
>   arch/x86/kvm/
>   arch/x86/???/
> 
> An alternative idea would be to mirror what generic KVM does (virt/kvm/), and do:
> 
>   arch/x86/coco/<guest stuff>
>   arch/x86/virt/<"generic" x86 host virtualization stuff>
>   arch/x86/virt/coco/<host coco stuff>
>   arch/x86/virt/kvm/
> 
> Though I can already hear the stable trees and downstream kernels crying out in
> horror at moving arch/x86/kvm :-)

Hmmm, so I am still thinking about guest-only when we're talking about
arch/x86/coco/.

Lemme look at the other virt things:

the kvm host virt stuff is in:

arch/x86/kvm/

 (btw, this is where the SEV host stuff is: arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c)

arch/x86/hyperv/ - looks like hyperv guest stuff

arch/x86/xen/ - xen guest stuff

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c - vmware guest stuff

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/acrn.c - Acorn guest stuff

So we have a real mess. :-(

Not surprised though. So that last thing you're suggesting kinda makes
sense but lemme tweak it a bit:

arch/x86/coco/<guest stuff>
arch/x86/virt/<"generic" x86 host virtualization stuff>
arch/x86/virt/tdx/ - no need for the "coco" thing - TDX is nothing but coco. TDX host
stuff

arch/x86/virt/sev/ - ditto

and we'll keep arch/x86/kvm because of previous precedents with other
things I've enumerated above.

Hmmm?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette