On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:11:05PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote: > On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 18:44:09 +1000 > David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 12:55:05PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 13:42:46 +1000 > > > David Gibson <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > A number of hardware platforms are implementing mechanisms whereby the > > > > hypervisor does not have unfettered access to guest memory, in order > > > > to mitigate the security impact of a compromised hypervisor. > > > > > > > > AMD's SEV implements this with in-cpu memory encryption, and Intel has > > > > its own memory encryption mechanism. POWER has an upcoming mechanism > > > > to accomplish this in a different way, using a new memory protection > > > > level plus a small trusted ultravisor. s390 also has a protected > > > > execution environment. > > > > > > > > The current code (committed or draft) for these features has each > > > > platform's version configured entirely differently. That doesn't seem > > > > ideal for users, or particularly for management layers. > > > > > > > > AMD SEV introduces a notionally generic machine option > > > > "machine-encryption", but it doesn't actually cover any cases other > > > > than SEV. > > > > > > > > This series is a proposal to at least partially unify configuration > > > > for these mechanisms, by renaming and generalizing AMD's > > > > "memory-encryption" property. It is replaced by a > > > > "guest-memory-protection" property pointing to a platform specific > > > > object which configures and manages the specific details. > > > > > > > > For now this series covers just AMD SEV and POWER PEF. I'm hoping it > > > > can be extended to cover the Intel and s390 mechanisms as well, > > > > though. > > > > > > For s390, there's the 'unpack' cpu facility bit, which is indicated iff > > > the kernel indicates availability of the feature (depending on hardware > > > support). If that cpu facility is available, a guest can choose to > > > transition into protected mode. The current state (protected mode or > > > not) is tracked in the s390 ccw machine. > > > > > > If I understand the series here correctly (I only did a quick > > > read-through), the user has to instruct QEMU to make protection > > > available, via a new machine property that links to an object? > > > > Correct. We used to have basically the same model for POWER - the > > guest just talks to the ultravisor to enter secure mode. But we > > realized that model is broken. You're effectively advertising > > availability of a guest hardware feature based on host kernel or > > hardware properties. That means if you try to migrate from a host > > with the facility to one without, you won't know there's a problem > > until too late. > > > > Sorry, I don't quite understand the migration problem described here. If > you have this modeled via a CPU model facility, then you can't migrate > from a host with the facility to one without, except if the user > specified CPU model does not include the facility in question. Or am I > missing something? Ah, sorry, my mistake. If it's all based on a cpu model facility that must be explicitly selected by the user (not based on host capbilities) then that's ok as well. The problem comes if you base guest availability on host availability, which early proposals for the POWER version did involve. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
