From: "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.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>,
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: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:46:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXG=rec5HSxfteQnc6ZZ0RnQZq+-wX6HNG5gm4tiSOuH_g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e1986845-9eb9-2147-5073-5d7a45633aba@intel.com>
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 16:41, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> 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.
>
> TDX doesn't need this protocol. It sounds like SEV does need it,
> though. That doesn't mean they really diverge. They're *both* going to
> have to poke at this protocol knob to get the firmware to not accept the
> memory.
>
No, on TDX, the firmware would never accept all memory. On SEV, it
would only do so if the protocol has not been called prior to the call
to ExitBootServices().
> This does slightly change the motivation for doing explicit unaccepted
> memory support in the kernel.
>
Not on TDX.
> I also don't know _quite_ how this will look to a guest. For instance,
> will they see different memory maps based on which protocol they are
> using? I assume so, but didn't see any of that explicitly mentioned in
> this patch.
The EFI memory map will not contain ranges of type
EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY if the memory was accepted on behalf of the OS
by the firmware. That is the point, really, as non-enlightened OSes
will ignore those.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-18 15:46 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
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 [this message]
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='CAMj1kXG=rec5HSxfteQnc6ZZ0RnQZq+-wX6HNG5gm4tiSOuH_g@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