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

["Duran, Leo" <leo.duran@amd.com>]

Jordan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordan Justen [mailto:jordan.l.justen@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:43 PM
> To: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> Cc: Singh, Brijesh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>; Lendacky, Thomas
> <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>; Duran, Leo <leo.duran@amd.com>; Jeff
> Fan <jeff.fan@intel.com>; Liming Gao <liming.gao@intel.com>; Laszlo Ersek
> <lersek@redhat.com>; Jiewen Yao <jiewen.yao@intel.com>; Michael D
> Kinney <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/17] x86: Secure Encrypted Virtualization (AMD)
> 
> 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.
> 
[Duran, Leo] 
OK, we will file the BZ... But please don't let that keep you from moving these patches forward.
Thanks! :-).

> -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
> > >
> > >