On 1/18/23 07:09, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> However, I guess we're at a point where SEV and TDX really want
> different solutions, so I think divergence might be the way to
> proceed.
I don't think they want different things really.
TDX doesn't need this protocol. It sounds like SEV does need it,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 16:41, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 1/18/23 07:09, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > However, I guess we're at a point where SEV and TDX really want
> > different solutions, so I think divergence might be the way to
> > proceed.
>
> I don't think they want different things really.
>
>
(cc'ing some folks whom I've discussed this with off-list today)
Full discussion here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-efi/20230113212926.2904735-1-dionnagl...@google.com/
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 23:46, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>
> On 1/16/23 15:22, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 1/16/23 02:56, Gerd
Hi,
> To Gerd's point, removing "first in edk2, later in linux too" I think
> is backwards. We need all users of the protocol to agree that SEV-SNP
> and TDX strictly imply unaccepted memory support. Only then can we
> remove the protocol from EDK2.
Its not backwards.
edk2 dropping support
>
> Why do you call boot with a bootloader a legacy feature?
>
Gerd answered this about EBS called from the bootloader.
> > they'll only get a safe view of the memory map. I don't think it's right
> > to choose unsafe behavior for a legacy setup.
>
> Present memory map with unaccepted memory to
Hi,
> In any case, the firmware side of things didn't seem like _that_ much
> code. So, I'm not protesting *that* strongly. But, I also don't
> believe for a second that this is going to be removed in 3-5 years.
If things are going roughly as I expect them to go (both tdx support and
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 02:17:11AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:43:15AM -0800, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> > > > I still don't understand why we need to support every imaginable
> > > > combination of firmware, bootloader and OS. Unaccepted memory only
> > > >
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:43:15AM -0800, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote:
> > > I still don't understand why we need to support every imaginable
> > > combination of firmware, bootloader and OS. Unaccepted memory only
> > > exists on a special kind of virtual machine, which provides very
> > > little
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:29:26PM +, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> This patch depends on Kirill A. Shutemov's series
>
> [PATCHv8 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
>
> The UEFI v2.9 specification includes a new memory type to be used in
> environments where the OS must
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 02:11:26PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 13:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023
On 1/16/23 02:56, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> And we add this protocol to address very temporary problem: once
>> unaccepted memory support get upstream it is just a dead weight.
> Maybe, maybe not. unaccepted memory support has a Kconfig switch after
> all. If we figure in 3-5 years that all
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:29:26PM +, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> > > This patch depends on Kirill A. Shutemov's series
> > >
> > > [PATCHv8 00/14] mm, x86/cc:
On 1/16/23 15:22, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 1/16/23 02:56, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
And we add this protocol to address very temporary problem: once
unaccepted memory support get upstream it is just a dead weight.
Maybe, maybe not. unaccepted memory support has a Kconfig switch after
all. If we
> > I still don't understand why we need to support every imaginable
> > combination of firmware, bootloader and OS. Unaccepted memory only
> > exists on a special kind of virtual machine, which provides very
> > little added value unless you opt into the security and attestation
> > features,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 at 13:31, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:56:48AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:29:26PM +, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> > > > This patch depends on
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 01:20:24AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:29:26PM +, Dionna Glaze wrote:
> > This patch depends on Kirill A. Shutemov's series
> >
> > [PATCHv8 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
> >
> > The UEFI v2.9
This patch depends on Kirill A. Shutemov's series
[PATCHv8 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory
The UEFI v2.9 specification includes a new memory type to be used in
environments where the OS must accept memory that is provided from its
host. Before the introduction of this
17 matches
Mail list logo
