Re: [PATCH 2/2] Maintainers.txt: Add reviewers for Confidential Computing related modules

["James Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2021-03-10 at 15:20 +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
[...]
> (2) Reviewing this patch makes me realize we've missed some
> "Maintainers.txt" updates in the past, in relation to SEV and/or
> confidential computing.
> 
> Namely, we did not designated any reviewers for the following
> pathnames:
> 
>   OvmfPkg/AmdSev/
>   OvmfPkg/Include/Guid/ConfidentialComputingSecret.h
>   OvmfPkg/Library/PlatformBootManagerLibGrub/
> 
> (from <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3077>;), also
> 
>   OvmfPkg/ResetVector/
> 
> (from <https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2198>;).
> 
> That should be fixed up before adding anything TDX related (I can
> submit a patch series, but first, the next point needs to be
> cleared.)

I'm happy to be added for all of it ... the first three are all me and
the last one I added something to.

> (3) After racking my brain for half an hour, I can find no good way
> to have TDX/SEV separation *plus* a Confidential Computing section in
> "Maintainers.txt". Whatever I managed to think of requires us to
> either duplicate email addresses, or duplicate pathnames ("F:"
> patterns) -- or even both.
> 
> So... can we simply rename the current SEV subsystem to "Confidential
> Computing", and keep both TDX and SEV modules under it? We could
> place a unified email address list there, with Brijesh, James,
> Jiewen, Min, Tom.
> 
> I don't think this should cause any confusion, because:
> 
> - @intel.com emails are clearly closely associated with TDX, and
> @amd.com emails are clearly closely associated with SEV,
> 
> - most filenames will (or do already) include "AmdSev" or "Tdx",
> 
> - future patches should clearly label themselves as "SEV only", "TDX
> only", or "confidential computing in general" -- this should be clear
> from the patch subjects.

That should work ... it's entirely possible that SecretDxe and
SecretPei can work for Intel as well ... we don't know yet, so they may
not need a prefix.

> IOW, there should be no confusion as to who's required to review
> what, but at the same time we'd have a simple solution for cross-
> posting all interested parties.
> 
> Thoughts?

Works for me ... IBM is interested in both SEV and TDX and having them
be as similar as posisble.

James