From: Michael Kelley <[email protected]>
Add documentation topic for Confidential Computing (CoCo) VM support
in Linux guests on Hyper-V.
Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst | 1 +
2 files changed, 259 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
diff --git a/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ffd6ba7a1d64
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+Confidential Computing VMs
+==========================
+Hyper-V can create and run Linux guests that are Confidential Computing
+(CoCo) VMs. Such VMs cooperate with the physical processor to better protect
+the confidentiality and integrity of data in the VM's memory, even in the
+face of a hypervisor/VMM that has been compromised and may behave maliciously.
+CoCo VMs on Hyper-V share the generic CoCo VM threat model and security
+objectives described in Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst. Note
+that Hyper-V specific code in Linux refers to CoCo VMs as "isolated VMs" or
+"isolation VMs".
+
+A Linux CoCo VM on Hyper-V requires the cooperation and interaction of the
+following:
+
+* Physical hardware with a processor that supports CoCo VMs
+
+* The hardware runs a version of Windows/Hyper-V with support for CoCo VMs
+
+* The VM runs a version of Linux that supports being a CoCo VM
+
+The physical hardware requirements are as follows:
+
+* AMD processor with SEV-SNP. Hyper-V does not run guest VMs with AMD SME,
+ SEV, or SEV-ES encryption, and such encryption is not sufficient for a CoCo
+ VM on Hyper-V.
+
+* Intel processor with TDX
+
+To create a CoCo VM, the "Isolated VM" attribute must be specified to Hyper-V
+when the VM is created. A VM cannot be changed from a CoCo VM to a normal VM,
+or vice versa, after it is created.
+
+Operational Modes
+-----------------
+Hyper-V CoCo VMs can run in two modes. The mode is selected when the VM is
+created and cannot be changed during the life of the VM.
+
+* Fully-enlightened mode. In this mode, the guest operating system is
+ enlightened to understand and manage all aspects of running as a CoCo VM.
+
+* Paravisor mode. In this mode, a paravisor layer between the guest and the
+ host provides some operations needed to run as a CoCo VM. The guest operating
+ system can have fewer CoCo enlightenments than is required in the
+ fully-enlightened case.
+
+Conceptually, fully-enlightened mode and paravisor mode may be treated as
+points on a spectrum spanning the degree of guest enlightenment needed to run
+as a CoCo VM. Fully-enlightened mode is one end of the spectrum. A full
+implementation of paravisor mode is the other end of the spectrum, where all
+aspects of running as a CoCo VM are handled by the paravisor, and a normal
+guest OS with no knowledge of memory encryption or other aspects of CoCo VMs
+can run successfully. However, the Hyper-V implementation of paravisor mode
+does not go this far, and is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Some
+aspects of CoCo VMs are handled by the Hyper-V paravisor while the guest OS
+must be enlightened for other aspects. Unfortunately, there is no
+standardized enumeration of feature/functions that might be provided in the
+paravisor, and there is no standardized mechanism for a guest OS to query the
+paravisor for the feature/functions it provides. The understanding of what
+the paravisor provides is hard-coded in the guest OS.
+
+Paravisor mode has similarities to the Coconut project, which aims to provide
+a limited paravisor to provide services to the guest such as a virtual TPM.
+However, the Hyper-V paravisor generally handles more aspects of CoCo VMs
+than is currently envisioned for Coconut, and so is further toward the "no
+guest enlightenments required" end of the spectrum.
+
+In the CoCo VM threat model, the paravisor is in the guest security domain
+and must be trusted by the guest OS. By implication, the hypervisor/VMM must
+protect itself against a potentially malicious paravisor just like it
+protects against a potentially malicious guest.
+
+The hardware architectural approach to fully-enlightened vs. paravisor mode
+varies depending on the underlying processor.
+
+* With AMD SEV-SNP processors, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in
+ VMPL 0 and has full control of the guest context. In paravisor mode, the
+ guest OS runs in VMPL 2 and the paravisor runs in VMPL 0. The paravisor
+ running in VMPL 0 has privileges that the guest OS in VMPL 2 does not have.
+ Certain operations require the guest to invoke the paravisor. Furthermore, in
+ paravisor mode the guest OS operates in "virtual Top Of Memory" (vTOM) mode
+ as defined by the SEV-SNP architecture. This mode simplifies guest management
+ of memory encryption when a paravisor is used.
+
+* With Intel TDX processor, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in an
+ L1 VM. In paravisor mode, TD partitioning is used. The paravisor runs in the
+ L1 VM, and the guest OS runs in a nested L2 VM.
+
+Hyper-V exposes a synthetic MSR to guests that describes the CoCo mode. This
+MSR indicates if the underlying processor uses AMD SEV-SNP or Intel TDX, and
+whether a paravisor is being used. It is straightforward to build a single
+kernel image that can boot and run properly on either architecture, and in
+either mode.
+
+Paravisor Effects
+-----------------
+Running in paravisor mode affects the following areas of generic Linux kernel
+CoCo VM functionality:
+
+* Initial guest memory setup. When a new VM is created in paravisor mode, the
+ paravisor runs first and sets up the guest physical memory as encrypted. The
+ guest Linux does normal memory initialization, except for explicitly marking
+ appropriate ranges as decrypted (shared). In paravisor mode, Linux does not
+ perform the early boot memory setup steps that are particularly tricky with
+ AMD SEV-SNP in fully-enlightened mode.
+
+* #VC/#VE exception handling. In paravisor mode, Hyper-V configures the guest
+ CoCo VM to route #VC and #VE exceptions to VMPL 0 and the L1 VM,
+ respectively, and not the guest Linux. Consequently, these exception handlers
+ do not run in the guest Linux and are not a required enlightenment for a
+ Linux guest in paravisor mode.
+
+* CPUID flags. Both AMD SEV-SNP and Intel TDX provide a CPUID flag in the
+ guest indicating that the VM is operating with the respective hardware
+ support. While these CPUID flags are visible in fully-enlightened CoCo VMs,
+ the paravisor filters out these flags and the guest Linux does not see them.
+ Throughout the Linux kernel, explicitly testing these flags has mostly been
+ eliminated in favor of the cc_platform_has() function, with the goal of
+ abstracting the differences between SEV-SNP and TDX. But the
+ cc_platform_has() abstraction also allows the Hyper-V paravisor configuration
+ to selectively enable aspects of CoCo VM functionality even when the CPUID
+ flags are not set. The exception is early boot memory setup on SEV-SNP, which
+ tests the CPUID SEV-SNP flag. But not having the flag in Hyper-V paravisor
+ mode VM achieves the desired effect or not running SEV-SNP specific early
+ boot memory setup.
+
+* Device emulation. In paravisor mode, the Hyper-V paravisor provides
+ emulation of devices such as the IO-APIC and TPM. Because the emulation
+ happens in the paravisor in the guest context (instead of the hypervisor/VMM
+ context), MMIO accesses to these devices must be encrypted references instead
+ of the decrypted references that would be used in a fully-enlightened CoCo
+ VM. The __ioremap_caller() function has been enhanced to make a callback to
+ check whether a particular address range should be treated as encrypted
+ (private). See the "is_private_mmio" callback.
+
+* Encrypt/decrypt memory transitions. In a CoCo VM, transitioning guest
+ memory between encrypted and decrypted requires coordinating with the
+ hypervisor/VMM. This is done via callbacks invoked from
+ __set_memory_enc_pgtable(). In fully-enlightened mode, the normal SEV-SNP and
+ TDX implementations of these callbacks are used. In paravisor mode, a Hyper-V
+ specific set of callbacks is used. These callbacks invoke the paravisor so
+ that the paravisor can coordinate the transitions and inform the hypervisor
+ as necessary. See hv_vtom_init() where these callback are set up.
+
+* Interrupt injection. In fully enlightened mode, a malicious hypervisor
+ could inject interrupts into the guest OS at times that violate x86/x64
+ architectural rules. For full protection, the guest OS should include
+ enlightenments that use the interrupt injection management features provided
+ by CoCo-capable processors. In paravisor mode, the paravisor mediates
+ interrupt injection into the guest OS, and ensures that the guest OS only
+ sees interrupts that are "legal". The paravisor uses the interrupt injection
+ management features provided by the CoCo-capable physical processor, thereby
+ masking these complexities from the guest OS.
+
+Hyper-V Hypercalls
+------------------
+When in fully-enlightened mode, hypercalls made by the Linux guest are routed
+directly to the hypervisor, just as in a non-CoCo VM. But in paravisor mode,
+normal hypercalls trap to the paravisor first, which may in turn invoke the
+hypervisor. But the paravisor is idiosyncratic in this regard, and a few
+hypercalls made by the Linux guest must always be routed directly to the
+hypervisor. These hypercall sites test for a paravisor being present, and use
+a special invocation sequence. See hv_post_message(), for example.
+
+Guest communication with Hyper-V
+--------------------------------
+Separate from the generic Linux kernel handling of memory encryption in Linux
+CoCo VMs, Hyper-V has VMBus and VMBus devices that communicate using memory
+shared between the Linux guest and the host. This shared memory must be
+marked decrypted to enable communication. Furthermore, since the threat model
+includes a compromised and potentially malicious host, the guest must guard
+against leaking any unintended data to the host through this shared memory.
+
+These Hyper-V and VMBus memory pages are marked as decrypted:
+
+* VMBus monitor pages
+
+* Synthetic interrupt controller (synic) related pages (unless supplied by
+ the paravisor)
+
+* Per-cpu hypercall input and output pages (unless running with a paravisor)
+
+* VMBus ring buffers. The direct mapping is marked decrypted in
+ __vmbus_establish_gpadl(). The secondary mapping created in
+ hv_ringbuffer_init() must also include the "decrypted" attribute.
+
+When the guest writes data to memory that is shared with the host, it must
+ensure that only the intended data is written. Padding or unused fields must
+be initialized to zeros before copying into the shared memory so that random
+kernel data is not inadvertently given to the host.
+
+Similarly, when the guest reads memory that is shared with the host, it must
+validate the data before acting on it so that a malicious host cannot induce
+the guest to expose unintended data. Doing such validation can be tricky
+because the host can modify the shared memory areas even while or after
+validation is performed. For messages passed from the host to the guest in a
+VMBus ring buffer, the length of the message is validated, and the message is
+copied into a temporary (encrypted) buffer for further validation and
+processing. The copying adds a small amount of overhead, but is the only way
+to protect against a malicious host. See hv_pkt_iter_first().
+
+Many drivers for VMBus devices have been "hardened" by adding code to fully
+validate messages received over VMBus, instead of assuming that Hyper-V is
+acting cooperatively. Such drivers are marked as "allowed_in_isolated" in the
+vmbus_devs[] table. Other drivers for VMBus devices that are not needed in a
+CoCo VM have not been hardened, and they are not allowed to load in a CoCo
+VM. See vmbus_is_valid_offer() where such devices are excluded.
+
+Two VMBus devices depend on the Hyper-V host to do DMA data transfers:
+storvsc for disk I/O and netvsc for network I/O. storvsc uses the normal
+Linux kernel DMA APIs, and so bounce buffering through decrypted swiotlb
+memory is done implicitly. netvsc has two modes for data transfers. The first
+mode goes through send and receive buffer space that is explicitly allocated
+by the netvsc driver, and is used for most smaller packets. These send and
+receive buffers are marked decrypted by __vmbus_establish_gpadl(). Because
+the netvsc driver explicitly copies packets to/from these buffers, the
+equivalent of bounce buffering between encrypted and decrypted memory is
+already part of the data path. The second mode uses the normal Linux kernel
+DMA APIs, and is bounce buffered through swiotlb memory implicitly like in
+storvsc.
+
+Finally, the VMBus virtual PCI driver needs special handling in a CoCo VM.
+Linux PCI device drivers access PCI config space using standard APIs provided
+by the Linux PCI subsystem. On Hyper-V, these functions directly access MMIO
+space, and the access traps to Hyper-V for emulation. But in CoCo VMs, memory
+encryption prevents Hyper-V from reading the guest instruction stream to
+emulate the access. So in a CoCo VM, these functions must make a hypercall
+with arguments explicitly describing the access. See
+_hv_pcifront_read_config() and _hv_pcifront_write_config() and the
+"use_calls" flag indicating to use hypercalls.
+
+load_unaligned_zeropad()
+------------------------
+When transitioning memory between encrypted and decrypted, the caller of
+set_memory_encrypted() or set_memory_decrypted() is responsible for ensuring
+the memory isn't in use and isn't referenced while the transition is in
+progress. The transition has multiple steps, and includes interaction with
+the Hyper-V host. The memory is in an inconsistent state until all steps are
+complete. A reference while the state is inconsistent could result in an
+exception that can't be cleanly fixed up.
+
+However, the kernel load_unaligned_zeropad() mechanism may make stray
+references that can't be prevented by the caller of set_memory_encrypted() or
+set_memory_decrypted(), so there's specific code in the #VC or #VE exception
+handler to fixup this case. But a CoCo VM running on Hyper-V may be
+configured to run with a paravisor, with the #VC or #VE exception routed to
+the paravisor. There's no architectural way to forward the exceptions back to
+the guest kernel, and in such a case, the load_unaligned_zeropad() fixup code
+in the #VC/#VE handlers doesn't run.
+
+To avoid this problem, the Hyper-V specific functions for notifying the
+hypervisor of the transition mark pages as "not present" while a transition
+is in progress. If load_unaligned_zeropad() causes a stray reference, a
+normal page fault is generated instead of #VC or #VE, and the page-fault-
+based handlers for load_unaligned_zeropad() fixup the reference. When the
+encrypted/decrypted transition is complete, the pages are marked as "present"
+again. See hv_vtom_clear_present() and hv_vtom_set_host_visibility().
diff --git a/Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst
index de447e11b4a5..79bc4080329e 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst
@@ -11,3 +11,4 @@ Hyper-V Enlightenments
vmbus
clocks
vpci
+ coco
--
2.25.1
Thank you for adding much needed documentation throughout the tree!
On 6/10/2024 1:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley <[email protected]>
>
> Add documentation topic for Confidential Computing (CoCo) VM support
> in Linux guests on Hyper-V.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Kelley <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Documentation/virt/hyperv/index.rst | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 259 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ffd6ba7a1d64
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/hyperv/coco.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +Confidential Computing VMs
> +==========================
> +Hyper-V can create and run Linux guests that are Confidential Computing
> +(CoCo) VMs. Such VMs cooperate with the physical processor to better protect
> +the confidentiality and integrity of data in the VM's memory, even in the
> +face of a hypervisor/VMM that has been compromised and may behave maliciously.
> +CoCo VMs on Hyper-V share the generic CoCo VM threat model and security
> +objectives described in Documentation/security/snp-tdx-threat-model.rst. Note
> +that Hyper-V specific code in Linux refers to CoCo VMs as "isolated VMs" or
> +"isolation VMs".
Thanks for incorporating the link to the threat model!
> +
> +A Linux CoCo VM on Hyper-V requires the cooperation and interaction of the
> +following:
> +
> +* Physical hardware with a processor that supports CoCo VMs
> +
> +* The hardware runs a version of Windows/Hyper-V with support for CoCo VMs
> +
> +* The VM runs a version of Linux that supports being a CoCo VM
> +
> +The physical hardware requirements are as follows:
> +
> +* AMD processor with SEV-SNP. Hyper-V does not run guest VMs with AMD SME,
> + SEV, or SEV-ES encryption, and such encryption is not sufficient for a CoCo
> + VM on Hyper-V.
> +
> +* Intel processor with TDX
> +
> +To create a CoCo VM, the "Isolated VM" attribute must be specified to Hyper-V
> +when the VM is created. A VM cannot be changed from a CoCo VM to a normal VM,
> +or vice versa, after it is created.
> +
> +Operational Modes
> +-----------------
> +Hyper-V CoCo VMs can run in two modes. The mode is selected when the VM is
> +created and cannot be changed during the life of the VM.
> +
> +* Fully-enlightened mode. In this mode, the guest operating system is
> + enlightened to understand and manage all aspects of running as a CoCo VM.
> +
> +* Paravisor mode. In this mode, a paravisor layer between the guest and the
> + host provides some operations needed to run as a CoCo VM. The guest operating
> + system can have fewer CoCo enlightenments than is required in the
> + fully-enlightened case.
> +
> +Conceptually, fully-enlightened mode and paravisor mode may be treated as
> +points on a spectrum spanning the degree of guest enlightenment needed to run
> +as a CoCo VM. Fully-enlightened mode is one end of the spectrum. A full
> +implementation of paravisor mode is the other end of the spectrum, where all
> +aspects of running as a CoCo VM are handled by the paravisor, and a normal
> +guest OS with no knowledge of memory encryption or other aspects of CoCo VMs
> +can run successfully. However, the Hyper-V implementation of paravisor mode
> +does not go this far, and is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Some
> +aspects of CoCo VMs are handled by the Hyper-V paravisor while the guest OS
> +must be enlightened for other aspects. Unfortunately, there is no
> +standardized enumeration of feature/functions that might be provided in the
> +paravisor, and there is no standardized mechanism for a guest OS to query the
> +paravisor for the feature/functions it provides. The understanding of what
> +the paravisor provides is hard-coded in the guest OS.
> +
> +Paravisor mode has similarities to the Coconut project, which aims to provide
> +a limited paravisor to provide services to the guest such as a virtual TPM.
Would it be useful to add an external link to the Coconut project here?
https://github.com/coconut-svsm/svsm
> +However, the Hyper-V paravisor generally handles more aspects of CoCo VMs
> +than is currently envisioned for Coconut, and so is further toward the "no
> +guest enlightenments required" end of the spectrum.
> +
> +In the CoCo VM threat model, the paravisor is in the guest security domain
> +and must be trusted by the guest OS. By implication, the hypervisor/VMM must
> +protect itself against a potentially malicious paravisor just like it
> +protects against a potentially malicious guest.
Tangential to this patch, can the guest provide its own paravisor since
it needs to be trusted and apparently the only way to find out if a
paravisor will be used is to rely on the (possibly) malicious
hypervisor/VMM to provide a synthetic MSR?
> +
> +The hardware architectural approach to fully-enlightened vs. paravisor mode
> +varies depending on the underlying processor.
> +
> +* With AMD SEV-SNP processors, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in
> + VMPL 0 and has full control of the guest context. In paravisor mode, the
> + guest OS runs in VMPL 2 and the paravisor runs in VMPL 0. The paravisor
> + running in VMPL 0 has privileges that the guest OS in VMPL 2 does not have.
> + Certain operations require the guest to invoke the paravisor. Furthermore, in
> + paravisor mode the guest OS operates in "virtual Top Of Memory" (vTOM) mode
> + as defined by the SEV-SNP architecture. This mode simplifies guest management
> + of memory encryption when a paravisor is used.
> +
> +* With Intel TDX processor, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in an
> + L1 VM. In paravisor mode, TD partitioning is used. The paravisor runs in the
> + L1 VM, and the guest OS runs in a nested L2 VM.
> +
> +Hyper-V exposes a synthetic MSR to guests that describes the CoCo mode. This
> +MSR indicates if the underlying processor uses AMD SEV-SNP or Intel TDX, and
> +whether a paravisor is being used. It is straightforward to build a single
> +kernel image that can boot and run properly on either architecture, and in
> +either mode.
> +
From: Easwar Hariharan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 9:10 AM
[snip]
> > +Operational Modes
> > +-----------------
> > +Hyper-V CoCo VMs can run in two modes. The mode is selected when the VM is
> > +created and cannot be changed during the life of the VM.
> > +
> > +* Fully-enlightened mode. In this mode, the guest operating system is
> > + enlightened to understand and manage all aspects of running as a CoCo VM.
> > +
> > +* Paravisor mode. In this mode, a paravisor layer between the guest and the
> > + host provides some operations needed to run as a CoCo VM. The guest operating
> > + system can have fewer CoCo enlightenments than is required in the
> > + fully-enlightened case.
> > +
> > +Conceptually, fully-enlightened mode and paravisor mode may be treated as
> > +points on a spectrum spanning the degree of guest enlightenment needed to run
> > +as a CoCo VM. Fully-enlightened mode is one end of the spectrum. A full
> > +implementation of paravisor mode is the other end of the spectrum, where all
> > +aspects of running as a CoCo VM are handled by the paravisor, and a normal
> > +guest OS with no knowledge of memory encryption or other aspects of CoCo VMs
> > +can run successfully. However, the Hyper-V implementation of paravisor mode
> > +does not go this far, and is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Some
> > +aspects of CoCo VMs are handled by the Hyper-V paravisor while the guest OS
> > +must be enlightened for other aspects. Unfortunately, there is no
> > +standardized enumeration of feature/functions that might be provided in the
> > +paravisor, and there is no standardized mechanism for a guest OS to query the
> > +paravisor for the feature/functions it provides. The understanding of what
> > +the paravisor provides is hard-coded in the guest OS.
> > +
> > +Paravisor mode has similarities to the Coconut project, which aims to provide
> > +a limited paravisor to provide services to the guest such as a virtual TPM.
>
> Would it be useful to add an external link to the Coconut project here?
> https://github.com/coconut-svsm/svsm
>
Yes, I'll add the link in a v2.
> > +However, the Hyper-V paravisor generally handles more aspects of CoCo VMs
> > +than is currently envisioned for Coconut, and so is further toward the "no
> > +guest enlightenments required" end of the spectrum.
> > +
> > +In the CoCo VM threat model, the paravisor is in the guest security domain
> > +and must be trusted by the guest OS. By implication, the hypervisor/VMM must
> > +protect itself against a potentially malicious paravisor just like it
> > +protects against a potentially malicious guest.
>
> Tangential to this patch, can the guest provide its own paravisor since
> it needs to be trusted and apparently the only way to find out if a
> paravisor will be used is to rely on the (possibly) malicious
> hypervisor/VMM to provide a synthetic MSR?
Conceptually, yes, you want the guest to be able to provide its own
paravisor implementation, or at least to be able to audit the source code
of the default paravisor provided by Hyper-V/Azure. The paravisor is part
of the guest security domain, so the guest must trust the paravisor. It's
easy to envision that customers who are very security-conscious might
want to provide their own Linux and paravisor.
But that's all conceptual. I'm not in the loop any longer on what
Microsoft is currently offering, or planning to offer, along these lines as
product functionality available to customers. As you say, it's somewhat
tangential to the Linux kernel itself. But if someone who knows wants to
flesh out the big picture with a link to existing public documentation,
please do so!
And thanks for your review. :-)
Michael
>
> > +
> > +The hardware architectural approach to fully-enlightened vs. paravisor mode
> > +varies depending on the underlying processor.
> > +
> > +* With AMD SEV-SNP processors, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in
> > + VMPL 0 and has full control of the guest context. In paravisor mode, the
> > + guest OS runs in VMPL 2 and the paravisor runs in VMPL 0. The paravisor
> > + running in VMPL 0 has privileges that the guest OS in VMPL 2 does not have.
> > + Certain operations require the guest to invoke the paravisor. Furthermore, in
> > + paravisor mode the guest OS operates in "virtual Top Of Memory" (vTOM) mode
> > + as defined by the SEV-SNP architecture. This mode simplifies guest management
> > + of memory encryption when a paravisor is used.
> > +
> > +* With Intel TDX processor, in fully-enlightened mode the guest OS runs in an
> > + L1 VM. In paravisor mode, TD partitioning is used. The paravisor runs in the
> > + L1 VM, and the guest OS runs in a nested L2 VM.
> > +
> > +Hyper-V exposes a synthetic MSR to guests that describes the CoCo mode. This
> > +MSR indicates if the underlying processor uses AMD SEV-SNP or Intel TDX, and
> > +whether a paravisor is being used. It is straightforward to build a single
> > +kernel image that can boot and run properly on either architecture, and in
> > +either mode.
> > +