[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEdS9SzFZZ4WGH6sR0WDCOgYDZ3Geg6X2sqSnQ-CXXpZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 19:17:00 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
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 Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 00:38, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
The E in EFI means 'extensible' and the whole design of a protocol
database using GUIDs as identifiers (which will not collide and
therefore need no a priori coordination when defining them) is
intended to allow extensions to be defined and implemented in a
distributed manner.
Of course, it would be fantastic if we can converge on a protocol that
all flavors of confidential compute can use, across different OSes, so
it is generally good if a protocol is defined in *some* shared
specification. But this doesn't have to be the EFI spec.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists