public inbox for devel@edk2.groups.io
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dionna Glaze" <dionnaglaze@google.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
	 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, jiewen.yao@intel.com,  devel@edk2.groups.io,
	"Min M. Xu" <min.m.xu@intel.org>,
	 James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
	 Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@google.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:43:15 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAH4kHb6-6QkMnYbcQ6MyMkwSBUN-Q3CcM3fuiStdbbnSfJv1A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230116134246.soworigs56bz5v7o@box.shutemov.name>

> > 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, which are all heavily based on firmware protocols. So why
> > should care about a EFI-aware bootloader calling ExitBootServices()
> > and subsequently doing a legacy boot of Linux on such systems?
>
> Why break what works? Some users want it.
>

The users that want legacy boot features will not be broken, 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.

> This patch adds complexity, breaks what works and the only upside will
> turn into a dead weight soon.
>
> There's alternative to add option to instruct firmware to accept all
> memory from VMM side. It will serve legacy OS that doesn't know about
> unaccepted memory and it is also can be use by latency-sensitive users
> later on (analog of qemu -mem-prealloc).
>

This means that users of a distro that has not enabled unaccepted
memory support cannot simply start a VM with the usual command, but
instead have to know a baroque extra flag to get access to all the
memory that they configured the machine (and for a CSP customer, paid
for). That's not a good experience.

With GCE at least, you can't (shouldn't) associate the boot feature
flag with a disk image because disks are mutable. If a customer
upgrades their kernel after initially starting their VM, they can't
remove the flag due to the way image annotations work.

All of this headache goes away by adopting a small patch to the kernel
that calls a 0-ary protocol interface and keeping safe acceptance
behavior in the firmware. I think Gerd is right here that we should
treat it as a transition feature that we can remove later.

> --
>   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov



-- 
-Dionna Glaze, PhD (she/her)

  reply	other threads:[~2023-01-16 19:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-13 21:29 [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI Dionna Glaze
2023-01-13 22:20 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-01-16 10:56   ` Gerd Hoffmann
2023-01-16 12:30     ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-01-16 13:11       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-16 13:42         ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-01-16 19:43           ` Dionna Glaze [this message]
2023-01-16 23:17             ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2023-01-17 10:24               ` Gerd Hoffmann
2023-01-17 16:45               ` Dionna Glaze
2023-01-18  7:51                 ` [edk2-devel] " Gerd Hoffmann
2023-01-16 21:22     ` Dave Hansen
2023-01-16 22:46       ` Lendacky, Thomas
2023-01-18 15:09         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-18 15:40           ` Dave Hansen
2023-01-18 15:46             ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-01-17 10:34       ` Gerd Hoffmann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-list from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAAH4kHb6-6QkMnYbcQ6MyMkwSBUN-Q3CcM3fuiStdbbnSfJv1A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox