On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 10.03.25 16:11, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 03:50:09PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
Am I understand correctly that you and Joerg are proposing
/sys/guest/tdx/...
/sys/guest/sev/...
?
Which path to use for the host side ?
For guest: /sys/coco/guest/{tdx,sev}/...
For host: /sys/coco/host/{tdx,sev}/...
Maybe it would be better to add the "coco" subdirectory or something like
that ?
Hmm, so we can do
/sys/guest
and extend
/sys/hypervisor
Or we can do what you're suggesting.
If we do /sys/coco/host, then we'll have two different places to read HV info.
Or we can stick *everything* coco needs in
/sys/coco/{sev,tdx}
but then it is coco-specific and if other guest types want to put stuff in
sysfs, it'll get ugly.
So I guess having
/sys/guest
and
/sys/hypervisor
kinda keeps it all clean, hierarchy-wise...
Right?
Kind of.
/sys/hypervisor is meant to provide data for running under a hypervisor.
It is NOT meant to provide data for running as a hypervisor.
So far when running either under Xen or under z/VM /sys/hypervisor is being
populated.
I'm not feeling really strong here. I just want to state the status quo.
OK, so I misunderstood.
If in the /sys/hypervisor we have information for guest (for running under
a hypervisor), where do you propose to put the information for the
host-side (for running as a hypervisor) ?
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature