Re: [PATCH v12 20/32] MdePkg: Define ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr

["Ni, Ray" <ray.ni@intel.com>]

Jiewen,
Sure. I am ok with this.
Acked-by: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
It doesn't make the code worse. Dynamic PCD was there already.

Thanks,
Ray



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 10:29 AM
> To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Cc: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Xu, Min M <min.m.xu@intel.com>; Tom Lendacky
> <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; Ard Biesheuvel
> <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>; Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>; Michael Roth <Michael.Roth@amd.com>; Gerd
> Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Liming Gao
> <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Liu, Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Kumar, Rahul1 <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>; Dong,
> Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v12 20/32] MdePkg: Define ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr
> 
> Brijesh and Ray
> I don’t disagree the disadvantage of dynamic PCD.
> However, dynamic PCD is widely used in today's solution.
> 
> If developers know clearly when this PCD value is finalized, then it won't be a problem.
> 
> Otherwise, I prefer we drop the dynamic PCD support in EDKII infrastructure. That would be a huge change!!!
> 
> Please note this is already *version 12*. We really need move forward.
> I suggest we keep it as is and check in.
> If we find problem later, we can resolve the specific issue.
> 
> Thank you
> Yao Jiewen
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 1:08 AM
> > To: Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > Cc: brijesh.singh@amd.com; James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Xu, Min M
> > <min.m.xu@intel.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Tom Lendacky
> > <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>;
> > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>; Erdem Aktas
> > <erdemaktas@google.com>; Michael Roth <Michael.Roth@amd.com>; Gerd
> > Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Liu,
> > Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Kumar, Rahul1 <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>;
> > Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 20/32] MdePkg: Define
> > ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr
> >
> > Hi Ray,
> >
> > On 11/11/21 8:00 AM, Ni, Ray wrote:
> > > I don't prefer to use a dynamic PCD for passing data.
> > >
> > > Because developers don't know when this PCD value is finalized (PCD always
> > has a default value).
> > >
> > > If the value is determined in PEI and consumed in DXE, HOB is a better choice.
> > > If the value is determined in PEI and consumed in PEI, PPI is a better choice.
> > (you can use PPI depex)
> > > If the value is determined in DXE and consumed in DXE, Protocol is a better
> > choice. (You can use Protocol depex)
> > >
> >
> > I wish you had raised your concerns early to avoid going in this PCD
> > direction. The PCD approach was discussed some time back. Both the
> > SEV-SNP and TDX patches are dependent on it.
> >
> > Having said so, if your preference is not to use the PCD, then it can be
> > done after SNP and TDX patches are merged.
> >
> > Jiewen/Min/Gerd thoughts?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 6:15 AM
> > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > Cc: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>; Xu, Min M
> > <min.m.xu@intel.com>; Yao, Jiewen <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Tom Lendacky
> > <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>; Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>;
> > Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>; Erdem Aktas
> > <erdemaktas@google.com>; Michael Roth <Michael.Roth@amd.com>; Gerd
> > Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>; Kinney, Michael D
> > <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>; Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>; Liu,
> > Zhiguang <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>; Ni, Ray <ray.ni@intel.com>; Kumar, Rahul1
> > <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>; Dong, Eric <eric.dong@intel.com>; Brijesh Singh
> > <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v12 20/32] MdePkg: Define ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr
> > >
> > > BZ:
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.
> > tianocore.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D3275&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cbrijesh.
> > singh%40amd.com%7C40483d937fa84cebe69908d9a51b9afd%7C3dd8961fe488
> > 4e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637722360254370524%7CUnknown%7
> > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
> > XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=EtT7bzDCZxsMA9sTCqISftp62QbezdoSf4k2
> > eCfZsws%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >
> > > While initializing APs, the MpInitLib may need to know whether the guest is
> > running with active AMD SEV or Intel TDX memory encryption.
> > >
> > > Add a new ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr PCD that can be used to query the
> > memory encryption attribute.
> > >
> > > Cc: Michael D Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Liming Gao <gaoliming@byosoft.com.cn>
> > > Cc: Zhiguang Liu <zhiguang.liu@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
> > > Cc: Ray Ni <ray.ni@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Rahul Kumar <rahul1.kumar@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Eric Dong <eric.dong@intel.com>
> > > Cc: James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: Min Xu <min.m.xu@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
> > > Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+tianocore@kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>
> > > Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>
> > > Acked-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>
> > > ---
> > >   MdePkg/MdePkg.dec                             |  4 +++
> > >   .../Include/ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr.h  | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >   2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
> > >   create mode 100644 MdePkg/Include/ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr.h
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MdePkg/MdePkg.dec b/MdePkg/MdePkg.dec index
> > 8b18415b107a..cd903c35d2ff 100644
> > > --- a/MdePkg/MdePkg.dec
> > > +++ b/MdePkg/MdePkg.dec
> > > @@ -2396,5 +2396,9 @@ [PcdsFixedAtBuild, PcdsPatchableInModule,
> > PcdsDynamic, PcdsDynamicEx]
> > >     # @Prompt FSB Clock.
> > >     gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdFSBClock|200000000|UINT32|0x0000000c
> > >
> > > +  ## This dynamic PCD indicates the memory encryption attribute of the guest.
> > > +  # @Prompt Memory encryption attribute
> > > +
> > gEfiMdePkgTokenSpaceGuid.PcdConfidentialComputingGuestAttr|0|UINT64|0x
> > > + 0000002e
> > > +
> > >   [UserExtensions.TianoCore."ExtraFiles"]
> > >     MdePkgExtra.uni
> > > diff --git a/MdePkg/Include/ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr.h
> > b/MdePkg/Include/ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..495b0df0ac33
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/MdePkg/Include/ConfidentialComputingGuestAttr.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> > > +/** @file
> > > +Definitions for Confidential Computing Attribute
> > > +
> > > +Copyright (c) 2021 AMD Inc. All rights reserved.<BR>
> > > +SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause-Patent
> > > +
> > > +**/
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef CONFIDENTIAL_COMPUTING_GUEST_ATTR_H_
> > > +#define CONFIDENTIAL_COMPUTING_GUEST_ATTR_H_
> > > +
> > > +typedef enum {
> > > +  /* The guest is running with memory encryption disabled. */
> > > +  CCAttrNotEncrypted = 0,
> > > +
> > > +  /* The guest is running with AMD SEV memory encryption enabled. */
> > > +  CCAttrAmdSev      = 0x100,
> > > +  CCAttrAmdSevEs    = 0x101,
> > > +  CCAttrAmdSevSnp   = 0x102,
> > > +
> > > +  /* The guest is running with Intel TDX memory encryption enabled. */
> > > +  CCAttrIntelTdx    = 0x200,
> > > +} CONFIDENTIAL_COMPUTING_GUEST_ATTR;
> > > +
> > > +#endif
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >