Index | Thread | Search

From:
Hans-Jörg Höxer <hshoexer@genua.de>
Subject:
Re: [EXT] Re: AMD SEV: confidential autoconf whitelist
To:
<tech@openbsd.org>
Date:
Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:50:14 +0200

Download raw body.

Thread
Hi,

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 05:46:32AM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote:
> >
> > well, I'd say we all agree that depending on ACPI is problematic.
> > Mark suggested to try to use the static tables only.  As we want to
> > ignore most of the qemu emulated hardware (in a confidentail comp setting)
> > anyway, this migth work good enough.  I will look into this.
> >
> > For qemu/kvm we need busspace paravirtualization which is not (yet)
> > supported by vmm and vmd.  When using the proposed whitelist diff, we
> > only attach devices, that work in both settings (qemu and vmm/vmd with
> > confidentiallity enabled; other configurations are not affected anyway).
> > So this should help us to improve and test both scenarios more easily.
> 
> So, to recap -
> 
> 1. you're going to try to use the static tables, and we should see a diff
>    for that at some point
> 
> 2. we can do the whitelist but not until #1 is done
> 
> is that right?

I'd say the other way round:

 1. do the whitelist now

 2. improve further by using the static table apporach

Take care,
HJ.