Download raw body.
[EXT] Re: AMD SEV: confidential autoconf whitelist
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 06:29:15PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 06:52:59AM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 02:50:14PM +0200, Hans-J?rg H?xer wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I worry that if we do it in this order, we won't be incentivized to do the > > static table stuff. We will end up committing it and not fixing it. > > > > Is there a reason we can't quickly verify that the static table approach works? > > The whitelist is the next step. Otherwise I cannot test anything. > Either my KVM/qemu or vmm/vmd setup will break without it. Any > further diff is untested unless combined with whitelist. > > bluhm If you feel strongly that this should go in, then you guys can commit the diff. I just wanted to see the result of the static table approach since if that doesn't work then the whitelist doesn't make sense IMO. There seems to be some progress off-list, so I'll leave it to you to decide if this is the right time or if this should wait until after release. -ml
[EXT] Re: AMD SEV: confidential autoconf whitelist