[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ed962dc3-1e7e-8959-7921-365fae705594@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:11:23 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, peterz@...radead.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] virt: sevguest: Prep for kernel internal {get,
get_ext}_report()
On 8/14/23 18:24, Dan Williams wrote:
> Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
>>>
>>> switch (ioctl) {
>>> case SNP_GET_REPORT:
>>> - ret = get_report(snp_dev, &input);
>>> + ret = get_report(snp_dev, &input, SNP_UARG);
>>> break;
>>> case SNP_GET_DERIVED_KEY:
>>> ret = get_derived_key(snp_dev, &input);
>>> break;
>>
>> Do we have an agreement around the continued existence of sev-guest
>> for supporting derived keys, is that similarly slated for the chopping
>> block, or is it left undecided?
>> It appears your choice to not include the uarg/karg extension here is
>> deliberate.
>
> I do want to understand the argument from James a bit more, but the
> exlcusion here was simply because there is currently no support for this
> concept from other vendors.
>
> That said, if it remains a vendor unique concept and continues getting
> suspicious looks from folks like James, it may indeed be something the
> kernel wants to jettison.
I'm not sure why we would want to jettison it. Just because other vendors
don't have a key derivation function doesn't mean it can't be useful to
customers that want to use it on AMD platforms.
Thanks,
Tom
>
>>> case SNP_GET_EXT_REPORT:
>>> - ret = get_ext_report(snp_dev, &input);
>>> + ret = get_ext_report(snp_dev, &input, SNP_UARG);
>>> break;
>>> default:
>>> break;
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
>
> Thanks for all your help on this!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists