Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <edb78a93-7981-70aa-a398-03c22d5bd424@amd.com>
References: <20171020143059.3291-1-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <CABayD+d-jZxAooyQAE3U-EWELnoNX01yxo1ZEnr8H6vKkVYC6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171116100222.k3zic3ut3ectnaly@pd.tnic> <edb78a93-7981-70aa-a398-03c22d5bd424@amd.com>
From:   Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:18:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CABayD+djKaDbZ_a9o6Ey6W_Oks6g8Bd1NMHUW_rA23jmbqhb+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Part1 PATCH v7 00/17] x86: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (AMD)
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LDg+KAnsOCIG3Dg8aSw4LCocOD4oCmw6LigJ7Cog==?= 
        <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> wrote:
> On 11/16/2017 4:02 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 03:57:13PM -0800, Steve Rutherford wrote:
>>>
>>> One piece that seems missing here is the handling of the vmm
>>> communication exception. What's the plan for non-automatic exits? In
>>> particular, what's the plan for emulated devices that are currently
>>> accessed through MMIO (e.g. the IOAPIC)?
>>
>>
>> First of all, please do not top-post.
>>
>> Then, maybe this would answer some of your questions:
>>
>>
>> http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/Protecting%20VM%20Register%20State%20with%20SEV-ES.pdf
>>
>> But I'd look in Tom's direction for further comments.
>
>
> I'm not sure what the question really is...
>
> MMIO works just fine using the data contained in the VMCB on exit
> (exit_info_1, exit_info_2, insn_bytes, etc.).
>
> These patches are for SEV support.  If the question is related to SEV-ES
> (based on the non-automatic exit comment), that support is not part of
> these patches and will require additional changes to be able to both
> launch a guest as an SEV-ES guest and run as an SEV-ES guest.

I conflated SEV with SEV-ES, which I suspect answers everything here.
The reason it doesn't have support for the #VC exception is because
it's not supposed to... yet.

I'm still interested in the plan for the #VC exception handler, but
this thread doesn't seem like the place.

>
>>
>>> Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself: What's the testing story? (since I
>>> don't think linux would boot with these patches, I'm curious what you
>>> are doing to ensure these pieces work)
>>
>>
>> Seems to boot fine here :)
>
>
> Using these patches we have successfully booted and tested a guest both
> with and without SEV enabled.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>>
>

Thanks,
Steve

From 1584250629492739828@xxx Thu Nov 16 19:05:36 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1581787886872450890
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread