On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:29:29PM -0700, Marc Orr wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 1:05 PM James Bottomley <jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Of course we could start changing linux-svsm to support the same > > > goals, but I think the end result will not be very different from > > > what COCONUT looks now. > > > > That's entirely possible, so what are the chances of combining the > > projects now so we don't get a split in community effort? > > Very cool to see this announcement and read the discussion! > > One SVSM will be better for Google too. Specifically: > - One hypervisor/SVSM startup sequence is easier for us to get working > - One SVSM is easier to test/qualify/deploy > - Generally speaking, things will be easier for us if all SNP VMs > start running off of the same "first mutable code". I.e., the same > SVSM, UEFI, etc. I agree with this from the Red Hat side. We would prefer there to be a standard / common SVSM used by all [OSS] hypervisors/clouds, to reduce permutations that guest OS vendors/tenants have to develop/test/deploy against. It looks like even developing one high quality feature rich SVSM is a non-trivial undertaking, so I agree with James that it is undesirable to divide community resources across many competing impls, without a compelling justification. With 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 :|
