-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
feat: amd-sev-snp draft and feature flags for confidential computing #352
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
jorgeantonio21
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good.
Left a few comments
jorgeantonio21
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking great,
Left a few more comments in the current logic
atoma-state/src/migrations/20241202121152_node_public_key_rotation.sql
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| /// Err(e) => eprintln!("Attestation failed: {}", e), | ||
| /// } | ||
| /// ``` | ||
| pub fn get_compute_data_attestation(attested_data: &[u8]) -> Result<SNPAttestationReport> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks great to me, we do need to look further how to incorporate NVIDIA cc into these remote attestation generation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, nvtrust port in progress.
…to feat/sev-snp-support
…maConfidentialComputeError
jorgeantonio21
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great overall. Let's wait until we have it tested and then we can merge :)
jorgeantonio21
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left some comments, which hopefully will help with the tests.
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
| -- Create tasks table | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This comment is not within context.
| @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ | |||
| -- Create tasks table | |||
| CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS node_public_key_rotations ( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suggest instead of re-creating the node_public_key_rotations table, that was already created in a previous migrations, to instead alter it (in place).
Notice that you are creating the table if not exists, which already does, so your changes are not applied and you get a bunch of missing column related errors in the tests.
Instead, I would change the code to something along the lines:
ALTER TABLE node_public_key_rotations
DROP COLUMN tdx_quote_bytes,
ADD COLUMN tee_quote_bytes BYTEA NOT NULL,
ADD COLUMN tee_provider BYTEA NOT NULL;There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good, will make this change
TODO: