Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:17:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7502e1af0615c08167076ff452fc69ebf316c730.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20230327141816.2648615-1-carlos.bilbao@amd.com>
 <ZEfrjtgGgm1lpadq@google.com> <DM8PR11MB575046B6DAA17B41FFED8080E7659@DM8PR11MB5750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
 <7502e1af0615c08167076ff452fc69ebf316c730.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <ZElOfzn37kmesy7e@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: security: Confidential computing intro and threat model
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@amd.com>,
        "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ardb@kernel.org" <ardb@kernel.org>,
        "kraxel@redhat.com" <kraxel@redhat.com>,
        "dovmurik@linux.ibm.com" <dovmurik@linux.ibm.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Dhaval.Giani@amd.com" <Dhaval.Giani@amd.com>,
        "michael.day@amd.com" <michael.day@amd.com>,
        "pavankumar.paluri@amd.com" <pavankumar.paluri@amd.com>,
        "David.Kaplan@amd.com" <David.Kaplan@amd.com>,
        "Reshma.Lal@amd.com" <Reshma.Lal@amd.com>,
        "Jeremy.Powell@amd.com" <Jeremy.Powell@amd.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "dgilbert@redhat.com" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "dinechin@redhat.com" <dinechin@redhat.com>,
        "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>,
        "berrange@redhat.com" <berrange@redhat.com>,
        "mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>, "tytso@mit.edu" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        "jikos@kernel.org" <jikos@kernel.org>,
        "joro@8bytes.org" <joro@8bytes.org>,
        "leon@kernel.org" <leon@kernel.org>,
        "richard.weinberger@gmail.com" <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
        "lukas@wunner.de" <lukas@wunner.de>,
        "cdupontd@redhat.com" <cdupontd@redhat.com>,
        "jasowang@redhat.com" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "sameo@rivosinc.com" <sameo@rivosinc.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "security@kernel.org" <security@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@rivosinc.com>,
        Rajnesh Kanwal <rkanwal@rivosinc.com>,
        Dylan Reid <dylan@rivosinc.com>,
        Ravi Sahita <ravi@rivosinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:32 +0000, Reshetova, Elena wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023, Carlos Bilbao wrote:
> [...]
> > > > +provide stronger security guarantees to their clients (usually
> > > > referred to +as tenants) by excluding all the CSP's
> > > > infrastructure and SW out of the +tenant's Trusted Computing Base
> > > > (TCB).
> > > 
> > > This is inaccurate, the provider may still have software and/or
> > > hardware in the TCB.
> > 
> > Well, this is the end goal where we want to be,

If by "we" you mean Intel and AMD, then yes, that is probably a true statement.
But those goals have nothing to do with security.

> > the practical deployment can differ of course. We can rephrase that it
> > "allows to exclude all the CSP's infrastructure and SW out of tenant's
> > TCB." 
> 
> That's getting even more inaccurate.  To run  in a Cloud with CoCo you
> usually have to insert some provided code, like OVMF and, for AMD, the
> SVSM.  These are often customized by the CSP to suit the cloud
> infrastructure, so you're running their code.  The goal, I think, is to
> make sure you only run code you trust (some of which may come from the
> CSP) in your TCB, which is very different from the statement above.

Yes.  And taking things a step further, if we were to ask security concious users
what they would choose to have in their TCB: (a) closed-source firmware written by
a hardware vendor, or (b) open-source software that is provided by CSPs, I am
betting the overwhelming majority would choose (b).