On 4/26/23 2:53 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, Carlos Bilbao wrote: >> On 4/26/23 10:51 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: >>> This document is named confidential-computing.rst, not tdx-and-snp.rst. Not >>> explicitly mentioning SEV doesn't magically warp reality to make descriptions like >>> this one from security/secrets/coco.rst disappear: >>> >>> Introduction >>> ============ >>> >>> Confidential Computing (coco) hardware such as AMD SEV (Secure Encrypted >>> Virtualization) allows guest owners to inject secrets into the VMs >>> memory without the host/hypervisor being able to read them. >>> >>> My complaint about this document being too Intel/AMD centric isn't that it doesn't >>> mention other implementations, it's that the doc describes CoCo purely from the >>> narrow viewpoint of Intel TDX and AMD SNP, and to be blunt, reads like a press >>> release and not an objective overview of CoCo. >> >> Be specific about the parts of the document that you feel are too >> AMD/Intel centric, and we will correct them. > > The whole thing? There aren't specific parts that are too SNP/TDX centric, the > entire tone and approach of the document is wrong. As I responded to Dave, I > would feel differently if the document were named tdx-and-snp-threat-model.rst, > but this patch proposes a generic confidential-computing.rst and presents the > SNP+TDX confidential VM use case as if it's the *only* confidential computing use > case. What part of us describing the current Linux kernel threat model or defining basic concepts of confidential computing is SNP/TDX centric? IMHO, simply stating that "the whole thing" is wrong and that you don't like the "tone", is not making a good enough case for us to change anything, including the name of the document. Thanks, Carlos
