[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220809115427.bmkbap434oupinq2@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:54:27 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Marc Orr <marcorr@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>,
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>,
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>,
"Yao, Jiewen" <jiewen.yao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted
memory
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:36:00PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 at 13:11, Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 01:14:07PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 19:13, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 7/19/22 17:26, Marc Orr wrote:
> > > > > - Dave's suggestion to "2. Boot some intermediate thing like a
> > > > > bootloader that does acceptance ..." is pretty clever! So if upstream
> > > > > thinks this FW-kernel negotiation is not a good direction, maybe we
> > > > > (Google) can pursue this idea to avoid introducing yet another tag on
> > > > > our images.
> > > >
> > > > I'm obviously speaking only for myself here and not for "upstream" as a
> > > > whole, but I clearly don't like the FW/kernel negotiation thing. It's a
> > > > permanent pain in our necks to solve a very temporary problem.
> > >
> > > EFI is basically our existing embodiment of this fw/kernel negotiation
> > > thing, and iff we need it, I have no objection to using it for this
> > > purpose, i.e., to allow the firmware to infer whether or not it should
> > > accept all available memory on behalf of the OS before exiting boot
> > > services. But if we don't need this, even better.
> >
> > FW/kernel negotiation does not work if there's a boot loader in the middle
> > that does ExitBootServices(). By the time kernel can announce if it
> > supports unaccepted memory there's nobody to announce to.
> >
>
> Why would you want to support such bootloaders for TDX anyway? TDX
> heavily relies on measured boot abstractions and other things that are
> heavily tied to firmware.
I don't understand it either. And, yet, there's demand for it.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists