Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] revert RNG seed mess

[Dov Murik]

Hi Michael,

On 08/02/2023 23:12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> All attempts to fix up passing RNG seed via setup_data entry failed.
> Let's just rip out all of it.  We'll start over.
> 
> 
> Warning: all I did was git revert the relevant patches and resolve the
> (trivial) conflicts. Not even compiled - it's almost midnight here.
> 
> Jason this is the kind of approach I'd like to see, not yet another
> pointer math rich patch I need to spend time reviewing. Just get us back
> to where we started. We can redo "x86: use typedef for SetupData struct"
> later if we want, it's benign.
> 
> Could you do something like this pls?
> Or test and ack if this patchset happens to work by luck.
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin (7):
>   Revert "x86: don't let decompressed kernel image clobber setup_data"
>   Revert "x86: do not re-randomize RNG seed on snapshot load"
>   Revert "x86: re-initialize RNG seed when selecting kernel"
>   Revert "x86: reinitialize RNG seed on system reboot"
>   Revert "x86: use typedef for SetupData struct"
>   Revert "x86: return modified setup_data only if read as memory, not as
>     file"
>   Revert "hw/i386: pass RNG seed via setup_data entry"
> 
>  include/hw/i386/microvm.h |   5 +-
>  include/hw/i386/pc.h      |   3 -
>  include/hw/i386/x86.h     |   3 +-
>  include/hw/nvram/fw_cfg.h |  31 ----------
>  hw/i386/microvm.c         |  17 ++----
>  hw/i386/pc.c              |   4 +-
>  hw/i386/pc_piix.c         |   2 -
>  hw/i386/pc_q35.c          |   2 -
>  hw/i386/x86.c             | 122 ++++++++++----------------------------
>  hw/nvram/fw_cfg.c         |  21 ++-----
>  10 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-)
> 


I tested this series with SEV measured boot using AmdSev OVMF.  The boot
succeeds, and the hashes computed for kernel/initrd/cmdline are
identical to the ones computed by qemu 7.1.0, which are the hashes that
the guest owner would expect.

As for non-EFI (non-SEV) guests, I did a very simple test of starting a
non-EFI guest and it looks OK, but more testing is needed.

So:

Tested-by: Dov Murik <dovmurik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Thank you!

-Dov