[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220627223808.ihgy3epdx6ofll43@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 01:38:08 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Cerri <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
tim.gardner@...onical.com,
Khalid ElMously <khalid.elmously@...onical.com>,
philip.cox@...onical.com,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted
memory
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 06:33:51PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just as an idea, we can put info into UTS_VERSION which can be read from
> > > > > the built bzImage. We have info on SMP and preeption there already.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Instead of hacking this into the binary, couldn't we define a protocol
> > > > that the kernel will call from the EFI stub (before EBS()) to identify
> > > > itself as an image that understands unaccepted memory, and knows how
> > > > to deal with it?
> > > >
> > > > That way, the firmware can accept all the memory on behalf of the OS
> > > > at ExitBootServices() time, unless the OS has indicated there is no
> > > > need to do so.
> > >
> > > I agree it would be better. But I think it would require change to EFI
> > > spec, no?
> >
> > Could this somehow be amended on to the UEFI Specification version 2.9
> > change which added all of the unaccepted memory features?
> >
>
> Why would this need a change in the EFI spec? Not every EFI protocol
> needs to be in the spec.
My EFI knowledge is shallow. Do we do this in other cases?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists