On 4/26/23 4:33 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, Carlos Bilbao wrote: >> 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. > > I honestly don't know how to respond since you are either unable or unwilling to > see the problems with naming a document "confidential computing" and then talking > only about one very, very specific flavor of confidential computing as if that is > the only flavor of confidential computing. > > So if you want to push this doc as is, please add my > > Nacked-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> > Well, the intent was and still is to work with the community to collect feedback and finish a version were all flavors are represented --see Motivation section of the draft. But if you are unable or unwilling to collaborate with us, just please make sure to read whatever is the final version. I will assume it has your Nacked-By otherwise. To the rest, please do point out to specific parts you consider to be AMD/Intel agnostic. We will do our best effort to fix it. Thanks, Carlos
