linux-kernel - Re: [PULL 00/19] KVM: Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Hypervisor 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: Mon, 13 May 2024 15:08:21 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, jroedel@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com, 
	vkuznets@...hat.com, pgonda@...gle.com, rientjes@...gle.com, tobin@....com, 
	bp@...en8.de, vbabka@...e.cz, alpergun@...gle.com, ashish.kalra@....com, 
	nikunj.dadhania@....com, pankaj.gupta@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com, 
	papaluri@....com
Subject: Re: [PULL 00/19] KVM: Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP)
 Hypervisor Support

On Sun, May 12, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 9:14 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:17 PM Michael Roth <michael.roth@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > This pull request contains v15 of the KVM SNP support patchset[1] along
> > > with fixes and feedback from you and Sean regarding PSC request processing,
> > > fast_page_fault() handling for SNP/TDX, and avoiding uncessary
> > > PSMASH/zapping for KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT events. It's also been rebased
> > > on top of kvm/queue (commit 1451476151e0), and re-tested with/without
> > > 2MB gmem pages enabled.
> >
> > Pulled into kvm-coco-queue, thanks (and sorry for the sev_complete_psc
> > mess up - it seemed too good to be true that the PSC changes were all
> > fine...).
> 
> ... and there was a missing signoff in "KVM: SVM: Add module parameter
> to enable SEV-SNP" so I ended up not using the pull request. But it
> was still good to have it because it made it simpler to double check
> what you tested vs. what I applied.
> 
> Also I have already received the full set of pull requests for
> submaintainers, so I put it in kvm/next.  It's not impossible that it
> ends up in the 6.10 merge window, so I might as well give it a week or
> two in linux-next.

I certainly don't object to getting coverage in linux-next, but unless we have a
very good reason to push for 6.10, which doesn't seem to be the case, my strong
preference is to wait until 6.11 for the official merge.  I haven't had a chance
to look at v15, and at a quick glance, the SNP_EXTENDED_GUEST_REQUEST support in
particular still looks kludgy.  In general, this all feels very rushed.