Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-2045-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <b6f00233-0cbf-4d9a-aa8b-babc8a9ca696@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:56:56 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] x86/sev: Add the host SEV-SNP initialization
 support
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
 jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org,
 pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
 jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
 slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
 srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, rientjes@google.com, tobin@ibm.com,
 vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com,
 tony.luck@intel.com, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com,
 alpergun@google.com, jarkko@kernel.org, ashish.kalra@amd.com,
 nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, pankaj.gupta@amd.com,
 "liam.merwick@oracle.com Brijesh Singh" <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
References: <20231230161954.569267-1-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <20231230161954.569267-5-michael.roth@amd.com>
 <f60c5fe0-9909-468d-8160-34d5bae39305@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20240105160916.GDZZgprE8T6xbbHJ9E@fat_crate.local>
 <20240105162142.GEZZgslgQCQYI7twat@fat_crate.local>
 <0c4aac73-10d8-4e47-b6a8-f0c180ba1900@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20240108170418.GDZZwrEiIaGuMpV0B0@fat_crate.local>
 <b5b57b60-1573-44f4-8161-e2249eb6f9b6@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20240109122906.GCZZ08Esh86vhGwVx1@fat_crate.local>
 <20240109124440.GDZZ0/uDY9RRPIOxOB@fat_crate.local>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240109124440.GDZZ0/uDY9RRPIOxOB@fat_crate.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 09/01/2024 13:44, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 01:29:06PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> At least three issues I see with that:
>>
>> - the allocation can fail so it is a lot more convenient when the
>>   firmware prepares it
>>
>> - the RMP_BASE and RMP_END writes need to be verified they actially did
>>   set up the RMP range because if they haven't, you might as well
>>   throw SNP security out of the window. In general, letting the kernel
>>   do the RMP allocation needs to be verified very very thoroughly.
>>
>> - a future feature might make this more complicated
> 
> - What do you do if you boot on a system which has the RMP already
>   allocated in the BIOS?
> 
> - How do you detect that it is the L1 kernel that must allocate the RMP?
> 
> - Why can't you use the BIOS allocated RMP in your scenario too instead
>   of the L1 kernel allocating it?
> 
> - ...
> 
> I might think of more.
> 

Sorry for not replying back sooner.

I agree, lets get the base SNP stuff in and then talk about extensions.

I want to sync up with Michael to make sure he's onboard with what I'm
proposing. I'll add more design/documentation/usecase descriptions with the
next submission and will make sure to address all the issues you brought up.

Jeremi