On 04/02/2018 12:33 PM, John Ferlan wrote:
On 04/02/2018 10:18 AM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> Extend hypervisor capabilities to include sev feature. When available,
> hypervisor supports launching an encrypted VM on AMD platform. The
> sev feature tag provides additional details like platform diffie-hellman
Diffie-Hellman
right?
Yes, I will use camel case in next patch.
> key and certificate chain which can be used by the guest owner
to
> establish a cryptographic session with the SEV firmware to negotiate
> keys used for attestation or to provide secret during launch.
>
> Reviewed-by: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange(a)redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh(a)amd.com>
> ---
> docs/formatdomaincaps.html.in | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> docs/schemas/domaincaps.rng | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> src/conf/domain_capabilities.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> src/conf/domain_capabilities.h | 1 +
> src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 2 ++
> 5 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
>
I see this has Daniel's R-by, but I have a few notes and questions...
> diff --git a/docs/formatdomaincaps.html.in b/docs/formatdomaincaps.html.in
> index 6bfcaf6..f383141 100644
> --- a/docs/formatdomaincaps.html.in
> +++ b/docs/formatdomaincaps.html.in
> @@ -417,6 +417,12 @@
> <value>3</value>
> </enum>
> </gic>
> + <sev>
> + <pdh> </pdh>
> + <cert-chain> </cert-chain>
> + <cbitpos> </cbitpos>
> + <reduced-phys-bits> </reduced-phys-bits>
> + </sev>
The example output should have some sort of example output and not an
empty space.
Noted, I will fill in some random values.
> </features>
> </domainCapabilities>
> </pre>
> @@ -441,5 +447,39 @@
> <code>gic</code> element.</dd>
> </dl>
>
> + <h4><a id="elementsSEV">SEV
capabilities</a></h4>
> +
> + <p>AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV) capabilities are exposed
under
> + the <code>sev</code> element.
> + SEV is an extension to the AMD-V architecture which supports running
> + virtual machines (VMs) under the control of a hypervisor. When supported,
> + guest owner can create a VM whose memory contents will be transparently
> + encrypted with a key unique to that VM.
I think it would be cleaner to add a </p> to after VM and then a new <p>
on the next line
Noted.
> +
> + For more details on SEV feature see:
> + <a
href="https://support.amd.com/TechDocs/55766_SEV-KM%20API_Specificat...
> + SEV API spec</a> and <a
href="http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2013/12...
> + SEV White Paper</a>
> +
> + </p>
> +
> + <dl>
> + <dt><code>pdh</code></dt>
> + <dd>Platform diffie-hellman key, which can be exported to remote
entities
Again, I think this should be Diffie-Hellman ?
And it's the public key right - so "A base64 encoded platform
Diffie-Hellman public key which..."
Noted.
> + which wish to establish a secure transport context with the SEV platform
"which wish" reads strange - how about "that desire"
> + in order to transmit data securely. The key is encoded in base64</dd>
Add "A base64 encoded" up front makes the last sentence duplicitous.
> + <dt><code>cert-chain</code></dt>
> + <dd> Platform certificate chain -- which includes platform endorsement
key
> + (PEK), owners certificate authory (OCA) and chip endorsement key (CEK).
> + The certificate chain is encoded in base64.</dd>
A base64 encoded platform certificate chain that includes the platform
endorsement key (PEK), owners certificate authority (OCD), and chip
endorsement key (CEK).
Noted, makes it much cleaner. thanks
> + <dt><code>cbitpos</code></dt>
> + <dd>When memory encryption is enabled, one of the physical address bit
s/bit/bits
Noted.
> + (aka the C-bit) is utilized to mark if a memory page is
protected. The
> + C-bit position is Hypervisor dependent.</dd>
> + <dt><code>reduced-phys-bits</code></dt>
> + <dd>When memory encryption is enabled, we loose certain bits in
physical
> + address space. The number of bits we loose is hypervisor
dependent.</dd>
> + </dl>
> +
s/loose/lose
Noted
> </body>
> </html>
> diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincaps.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincaps.rng
> index 3905318..53b33eb 100644
> --- a/docs/schemas/domaincaps.rng
> +++ b/docs/schemas/domaincaps.rng
> @@ -173,6 +173,9 @@
> <element name='features'>
> <interleave>
> <ref name='gic'/>
> + <optional>
> + <ref name='sev'/>
> + </optional>
> </interleave>
> </element>
> </define>
> @@ -184,6 +187,23 @@
> </element>
> </define>
>
> + <define name='sev'>
> + <element name='sev'>
> + <element name='pdh'>
> + <data type='string'/>
> + </element>
> + <element name='cert-chain'>
> + <data type='string'/>
> + </element>
> + <element name='cbitpos'>
> + <data type='unsignedInt'/>
> + </element>
> + <element name='reduced-phys-bits'>
> + <data type='unsignedInt'/>
> + </element>
> + </element>
> + </define>
> +
I want to make sure of recent preferences which aren't documented, but
sometimes draw attention of certain reviewers...
Do we want dashes or camelCase for new names? e.g. "cert-chain" or
"certChain"? And likewise for reduced-phys-bits or reducedPhysBits?
I have been trying keep the same naming convension as sev-guest object
name (which uses dashes). I am flexible, if libvirt community prefers
camelCase over the dashes then I am okay with it.
> <define name='value'>
> <zeroOrMore>
> <element name='value'>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_capabilities.c b/src/conf/domain_capabilities.c
> index f7d9be5..082065f 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_capabilities.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_capabilities.c
> @@ -549,6 +549,25 @@ virDomainCapsFeatureGICFormat(virBufferPtr buf,
> FORMAT_EPILOGUE(gic);
> }
>
> +static void
> +virDomainCapsFeatureSEVFormat(virBufferPtr buf,
> + virSEVCapabilityPtr const sev)
> +{
> + if (!sev)
> + return;
> +
> + virBufferAddLit(buf, "<sev supported='yes'>\n");
> + virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);
> + virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<cbitpos>%d</cbitpos>\n",
sev->cbitpos);
> + virBufferAsprintf(buf,
"<reduced-phys-bits>%d</reduced-phys-bits>\n",
> + sev->reduced_phys_bits);
> + virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<pdh>%s</pdh>\n", sev->pdh);
> + virBufferAsprintf(buf, "<cert-chain>%s</cert-chain>\n",
> + sev->cert_chain);
When formatting strings, use virBufferEscapeString
Yes, I know they're base64 encoded, but not taking any chances...
Depending on whether there's an opinion w/r/t camelCase or not, I can
either fix up the nits or wait for a v6 with adjustments to the user
facing values.
Noted.
-Brijesh