[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210624123447.zbfkohbtdusey66w@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 07:34:47 -0500
From: Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sergio Lopez <slp@...hat.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, tony.luck@...el.com,
npmccallum@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part1 RFC v3 20/22] x86/boot: Add Confidential Computing
address to setup_header
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 09:27:41AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:19:11PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> > One downside to this is we still need something in the boot protocol,
> > either via setup_data, or setup_header directly.
>
> Huh, now I'm confused. You gave the acpi_rsdp_addr example and I thought
> that should be enough, that's why I suggested boot_params.
Well, that's sufficient for the boot/compressed->uncompressed parameter
passing, but wouldn't actual bootloaders still need something in
setup_data/setup_header to pass in the CC blob (for things like non-EFI
environments/containers)? I was under the impression that using
boot_params directly was more of a legacy/ad-hoc thing, is that
accurate?
>
> Maybe you should point me to the code which does what you need so that I
> can get a better idea...
>
> > Having it in setup_header avoids the need to also have to add a field
> > to boot_params for the boot/compressed->uncompressed passing, but
> > maybe that's not a good enough justification. Perhaps if the TDX folks
> > have similar needs though.
>
> Yes, reportedly they do so I guess the solution should be
> vendor-agnostic. Let's see what they need first.
Ok, good to know.
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists