linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] Provide SEV-SNP support for running under an SVSM

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: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:57:16 +0200
From: "Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@...el.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, 
	Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@...el.com>, 
	Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Provide SEV-SNP support for running under an SVSM

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:46:41PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > 4. Define a new guest abstraction/guest type that would be used for
> > !VMPL0/L2 guest. This allows in the future to define a unified L2 <-> L1/VMPL!0
> > <-> VMPL0 communication interface that underneath would use Intel
> > TDX/AMD SEV-SNP specified communication primitives. Out of existing Linux code,
> > this approach is followed to some initial degree by MSFT Hyper-V implementation [2].
> > It defines a new type of virtualized guest with its own initialization path and callbacks in
> >   x86_platform.guest/hyper.*. However, in our understanding noone has yet
> > attempted to define a unified abstraction for such guest, as well as unified interface.
> > AMD SEV-SNP has defined in [4] a VMPL0 <--> !VMPL0 communication interface
> >   which is AMD specific.
> 
> Can TDX create a new protocol within the SVSM that it could use?

Sure we can. But it contributes to virtualization zoo. The situation is
bad as it is. Ideally we would have a single SVSM guest type instead of
SVSM/TDX and SVSM/SEV.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov