[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHaqObDRfKAzM8tTrhmQWZx7w2oTP=YJOo=fCG1kHDvj8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 08:08:04 -0800
From: Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, "Min M. Xu" <min.m.xu@...el.com>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@...el.com>,
Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2, RESEND] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI
> > + efi_status_t status;
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY))
>
> Do we need to check for IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_AMD_MEM_ENCRYPT) here as well?
>
Arguably no, since the firmware should only make the protocol
available when it determines that the protocol should be used. In our
case, that's just SEV-SNP. The firmware's TDX logic will not expose
this protocol.
This maintains flexibility for the rare case that the TDX go-to-market
schedule doesn't align with upstream's acceptance of unaccepted memory
support, but does accept the generic TDX support. Best not paint
ourselves into a corner.
--
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists