On 5/20/21 4:05 AM, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
On 5/19/21 9:34 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 5/19/21 2:40 PM, Boris Fiuczynski wrote:
Add launch security type 's390-pv' as well as some tests.
Signed-off-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiu...@linux.ibm.com>
---
docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng | 1 +
src/conf/domain_conf.c | 8 +++++
src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_command.c | 26 ++++++++++++++
src/qemu/qemu_namespace.c | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_validate.c | 8 +++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml | 24 +++++++++++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv.xml | 18 ++++++++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml | 1 +
tests/genericxml2xmltest.c | 2 ++
...ty-s390-pv-ignore-policy.s390x-latest.args | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml | 33 +++++++++++++++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv.s390x-latest.args | 35 +++++++++++++++++++
.../launch-security-s390-pv.xml | 30 ++++++++++++++++
tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c | 3 ++
16 files changed, 227 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
tests/genericxml2xmlindata/launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml
create mode 100644 tests/genericxml2xmlindata/launch-security-s390-pv.xml
create mode 120000
tests/genericxml2xmloutdata/launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml
create mode 100644
tests/qemuxml2argvdata/launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.s390x-latest.args
create mode 100644
tests/qemuxml2argvdata/launch-security-s390-pv-ignore-policy.xml
create mode 100644
tests/qemuxml2argvdata/launch-security-s390-pv.s390x-latest.args
create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/launch-security-s390-pv.xml
diff --git a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
index 3df13a0cf1..7c92e4c812 100644
--- a/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
+++ b/docs/schemas/domaincommon.rng
@@ -485,6 +485,7 @@
<attribute name="type">
<choice>
<value>sev</value>
+ <value>s390-pv</value>
</choice>
</attribute>
<interleave>
You added a new 's390-pv' security type, but down there you're using
the new confidential-guest-support feature from QEMU 6.0 which is also
valid for AMD and pSeries. I think you can do a little change in the idea
of these patches while keeping most of it. Instead of calling this new
support 's390-pv', call it 'confidential-guest-support' or 'CGS'.
My reasoning is that the QEMU community (namely David Gibson, qemu-ppc
maintainer) went into a lot of discussions back and forth to develop the
confidential-guest-support machine option, based on what was at first AMD-SEV
specific code, with the intention of make it easier for users to enable
secure guests across machine types. I believe Libvirt should follow suit
and do the same - a single option to enable secure guest supports for
all guests, with any differences in the support being handled by each arch
deep down in the driver.
Otherwise, what will end up happening is that when someone (probably myself)
come along with the secure guest support for pSeries (PEF), I will need to
create yet another launch type 'ppc64-pef' to do basically the same thing you're
already doing for s390x, which is adding '-machine
confidential-guest-support=<>'
in the QEMU command line. Same thing with AMD SEV, and with any other
arch that QEMU might support with the confidential-guest-support option. We're
going to add extra XML parsing code and docs to handle the same thing.
Note that I'm not asking you to go ahead and implement the Libvirt support for
all the 3 archs. What I'm asking is to change the name of the launch security
type in the domain XML and docs to reflect that this will be the same type
that all other archs that has confidential-guest-support will end up using.
Thanks,
Daniel
Daniel,
thanks for your review and feedback.
When I looked at the QEMU commit 590466f056c4f
https://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=590466f056c4f2a7ff87ed751cece4f4ff02fd57
I did not get the impression that there is a common type for confidential guest
support possible as the requiered data per type differs. Also I got the
impression that the different types are not necessarily architecture bound. I
may have gotten the wrong impression.
The point I tried to make is that, although there are different types of secure
VMs in QEMU, this doesn't mean that we need different launch security types in
Libvirt since they're all tied in the same QEMU machine option. If you check
the QEMU confidential-guest-support docs:
https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/docs/confidential-guest-support.txt
----
To run a confidential guest you need to add two command line parameters:
1. Use "-object" to create a "confidential guest support" object. The
type and parameters will vary with the specific mechanism to be
used
2. Set the "confidential-guest-support" machine parameter to the ID of
the object from (1).
----
This is true for all 3 currently supported types. For s390x PV:
-object s390-pv-guest,id=pv0 \
-machine confidential-guest-support=pv0 \
AMD SEV:
-object sev-guest,id=sev0,cbitpos=47,reduced-phys-bits=1 \
-machine confidential-guest-support=sev0 \
PAPR PEF:
-object pef-guest,id=pef0 \
-machine confidential-guest-support=pef0 \
The difference between them, aside from the object types, is that AMD has
configurable arguments to deal with. So my proposal is to, instead of creating
a s390-pv launch type, you create a confidential-guest-support type:
<launchSecurity type='confidential-guest-support' />
This will translate, for s390x guests, into s390-pv. All validations and
constraints specific to s390-pv applies. This same XML for a PAPR guest will
trigger papr-pef code, and AMD-SEV code for AMD guests. AMD will probably want
to add more arguments, so they would want to extend it like it is already
done with their current 'sev' launcher:
<launchSecurity type='confidential-guest-support'>
<policy>0x0001</policy>
<cbitpos>47</cbitpos>
<reducedPhysBits>1</reducedPhysBits>
<dhCert>RBBBSDDD=FDDCCCDDDG</dhCert>
<session>AAACCCDD=FFFCCCDSDS</session>
</launchSecurity>
The advantage is that the same launchSecurity type will enable
confidential-guest-support for everyone, sparing a bit of XML parsing and
docs we would have if each arch adds a new launch type that maps to its own
secure VM technology. Note that you can (and should) clarify in the
docs that the confidential-guest-support for s390x guests is the s390-pf
technology and mention all applicable features/limitations of it. This also
will make for an easier time for other Libvirt users that has to deal with
multiple archs (not sure there are many, but ...) since the same option enables
secure VM for all archs.
I think you can argue that it's a matter of taste/design and that we should
instead add a launcherSecurity type for each secure VM technology, regardless
of how QEMU see all of them as a 'secure VM knob'. I would like to hear
other opinions (specially from AMD) about what they feel about it. I'd
rather have the same launcherSecurity type for everyone.
Thanks,
Daniel
