From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E633520945614 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E82E019D289; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:40:22 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E82E019D289 Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lersek@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com E82E019D289 Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-108.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.108]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35055DD66; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:40:20 +0000 (UTC) To: Brijesh Singh , Jordan Justen , edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com, leo.duran@amd.com, Jeff Fan , Liming Gao , Jiewen Yao , Michael D Kinney References: <1495809845-32472-1-git-send-email-brijesh.singh@amd.com> <2c3b8722-0e91-af09-5d3b-c5751dd53a9f@amd.com> <149935954954.18473.9057866656909328887@jljusten-skl> <6b79e292-e587-46a8-1f6a-a0483a01f8f7@amd.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <58fd11bf-accb-7b16-cd87-d1ba46edb499@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 22:40:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6b79e292-e587-46a8-1f6a-a0483a01f8f7@amd.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] x86: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (AMD) X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:38:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/06/17 22:11, 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. I agree. > As it turns out, we can do so within the existing GCD framework by > simply leveraging the APRIORI hook already in use by OvmfPkg. Not just in OvmfPkg. CorebootPayloadPkg, DuetPkg, EmulatorPkg, Nt32Pkg and Vlv2TbltDevicePkg also use "APRIORI DXE". See e.g. commit 70420e31a04b ("Nt32Pkg FDF: Move StatusCode Handler run earlier in DXE phase", 2017-01-20). > 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. I agree. Based on the past discussions, even said experts and edk2 maintainers aren't united on the optimal approach here. I think filing a BZ (or even a PI spec ticket!) for figuring out the best scope and location for the platformization of GCD, or for the same of the page table setup, is justified. However, I disagree that such a ticket should block this series, or that Brijesh should prioritize such a ticket after this initial OVMF series is merged. Brijesh has been handling SEV enablement in other projects as well, such as KVM, and there's still a whole lot to do after these initial OVMF patches are merged. Laszlo