Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] x86: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (AMD)

From: Andrew Fish <afish@apple.com>
To: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>,
	Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com, Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>,
	Leo Duran <leo.duran@amd.com>,
	Mike Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>,
	Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>,
	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>, Jeff Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] x86: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (AMD)
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 14:46:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E33B8F1-DE1D-4E19-9C73-2A1DEDF7C47C@apple.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <149937735857.21467.1917283905856299959@jljusten-skl.jf.intel.com>

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 2017-07-06 13:11:03, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/06/2017 11:45 AM, Jordan Justen wrote:
>>> On 2017-07-05 15:31:20, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>> Hi Jordan and Laszlo,
>>>> 
>>>> Ping.
>>>> 
>>>> It has been a while, Do you have any further feedbacks on this series ?
>>>> If you want then I can rebase the patches before you commit into upstream repos.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm still dissappointed by the APRIORI usage.
>>> 
>>> As I understand it, you are also dissatisfied with this approach and
>>> you hope to improve things by somehow hooking into DXE Core. Is that
>>> true? If so, can you create a bugzilla regarding this feature? When
>>> would you plan to work to address that?
>>> 
>> 
>> I think we agree in that this particular use-case has shown the need for re-thinking
>> the existing GCD interface. However, the problem we are trying to solve with this
>> patch-set is enabling the SEV feature. As it turns out, we can do so within the
>> existing GCD framework by simply leveraging the APRIORI hook already in use by OvmfPkg.
>> 
>> In that context, our proposal is that we limit the scope of this patch-set to simply
>> enabling the SEV feature, and then allow the 'GCD experts' to separately propose updates
>> to the framework.
> 
> This sounds like you don't plan to work on this, but will just leave
> it to the 'GCD experts'. Is that right?
> 
> I am asking that you file and own a bugzilla for this. You'd obviously
> need to work with the package owners though. Unless you drive this, I
> don't think anyone will be motivated enough to get it fixed.
> 

If some one will make a write up on this mailing list summarizing the issue with the GCD design, and what features are needed I can start a conversation on the PI working group list. 

Thanks,

Andrew Fish

> -Jordan
> 
>> 
>>> I guess with that resolved, you could add an Acked-by from me.
>>> 
>>> In general, it'd also be nice to move the processor features to more
>>> generic places, although that may be challenging if the next step is
>>> some kind of platform hook from DXE Core. Maybe if the DXE Core calls
>>> out to some protocol or signals an event then a driver in UefiCpuPkg
>>> could handle the protocol implementation to modify the page tables.
>>> 
>>> -Jordan
>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> edk2-devel mailing list
> edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel