On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 11:48:11PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, Brijesh Singh wrote:

quoted

From: Michael Roth <redacted>

Update the documentation with SEV-SNP CPUID enforcement.

Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <redacted>
---
 .../virt/kvm/amd-memory-encryption.rst        | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/amd-memory-encryption.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/amd-memory-encryption.rst
index 1c6847fff304..0c72f44cc11a 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/amd-memory-encryption.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/amd-memory-encryption.rst

This doc is specifically for KVM's host-side implemenation, whereas the below is
(a) mostly targeted at the guest and (b) has nothing to do with KVM.

Documentation/x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst isn't a great fit either.

Since TDX will need a fair bit of documentation, and SEV-ES could retroactively
use docs as well, what about adding a sub-directory:

	Documentation/virt/confidential_compute

There's actually a Documentation/virt/coco/sevguest.rst that was added
in this series as part of:

  "virt: Add SEV-SNP guest driver"

Maybe that's good choice?

I've been wondering about potentially adding the:

  "Guest/Hypervisor Implementation Notes for SEV-SNP CPUID Enforcement"

document that was sent to SNP mailing list under Documentation/
somewhere. If we were to do that, it would be a good place to move the
documentation from this patch into as well. Any thoughts on that?

to match the "cc_platform_has" stuffr, and then we can add sev.rst and tdx.rst
there?  Or sev-es.rst, sev-snp.rst, etc... if we want to split things up more.

It might be worth extracting the SEV details from x86/amd-memory-encryption.rst
into virt/ as well.  A big chunk of that file appears to be SEV specific, and it
appears to have gotten a little out-of-whack.  E.g. this section no longer makes
sense as the last paragraph below appears to be talking about SME (bit 23 in MSR
0xc0010010), but walking back "this bit" would reference SEV.  I suspect a
mostly-standalone sev.rst would be easier to follow than an intertwined SME+SEV.

  If support for SME is present, MSR 0xc00100010 (MSR_AMD64_SYSCFG) can be used to
  determine if SME is enabled and/or to enable memory encryption::

          0xc0010010:
                  Bit[23]   0 = memory encryption features are disabled
                            1 = memory encryption features are enabled

  If SEV is supported, MSR 0xc0010131 (MSR_AMD64_SEV) can be used to determine if
  SEV is active::

          0xc0010131:
                  Bit[0]    0 = memory encryption is not active
                            1 = memory encryption is active

  Linux relies on BIOS to set this bit if BIOS has determined that the reduction
  in the physical address space as a result of enabling memory encryption (see
  CPUID information above) will not conflict with the address space resource
  requirements for the system.  If this bit is not set upon Linux startup then
  Linux itself will not set it and memory encryption will not be possible.

I'll check with Brijesh on these.

Thanks!

-Mike