* Daniel P. Berrangé (berrange@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:14:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Michael Roth <michael.roth@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Most of the current 'query-sev' command is relevant to both legacy > > > SEV/SEV-ES guests and SEV-SNP guests, with 2 exceptions: > > > > > > - 'policy' is a 64-bit field for SEV-SNP, not 32-bit, and > > > the meaning of the bit positions has changed > > > - 'handle' is not relevant to SEV-SNP > > > > > > To address this, this patch adds a new 'sev-type' field that can be > > > used as a discriminator to select between SEV and SEV-SNP-specific > > > fields/formats without breaking compatibility for existing management > > > tools (so long as management tools that add support for launching > > > SEV-SNP guest update their handling of query-sev appropriately). > > > > Technically a compatibility break: query-sev can now return an object > > that whose member @policy has different meaning, and also lacks @handle. > > > > Matrix: > > > > Old mgmt app New mgmt app > > Old QEMU, SEV/SEV-ES good good(1) > > New QEMU, SEV/SEV-ES good(2) good > > New QEMU, SEV-SNP bad(3) good > > > > Notes: > > > > (1) As long as the management application can cope with absent member > > @sev-type. > > > > (2) As long as the management application ignores unknown member > > @sev-type. > > > > (3) Management application may choke on missing member @handle, or > > worse, misinterpret member @policy. Can only happen when something > > other than the management application created the SEV-SNP guest (or the > > user somehow made the management application create one even though it > > doesn't know how, say with CLI option passthrough, but that's always > > fragile, and I wouldn't worry about it here). > > > > I think (1) and (2) are reasonable. (3) is an issue for management > > applications that support attaching to existing guests. Thoughts? > > IIUC you can only reach scenario (3) if you have created a guest > using '-object sev-snp-guest', which is a new feature introduced > in patch 2. > > IOW, scenario (3) old mgmt app + new QEMU + sev-snp guest does > not exist as a combination. Thus the (bad) field is actually (n/a) > > So I believe this proposed change is acceptable in all scenarios > with existing deployed usage, as well as all newly introduced > scenarios. I wonder if it's worth going firther and renaming 'policy' in the SNP world to 'snppolicy' just to reduce the risk of accidentally specifying the wrong one. Dave > Regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx / Manchester, UK
