[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] i386/sev: update query-sev QAPI format to handl
From: |
Daniel P . Berrangé |
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/12] i386/sev: update query-sev QAPI format to handle SEV-SNP |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Sep 2021 17:01:18 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) |
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:14:10PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com> 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.
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 :|