Re: [PATCH Part1 RFC v3 20/22] x86/boot: Add Confidential Computing address to setup_header

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	"Kuppuswamy,
	Sathyanarayanan" <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Sergio Lopez <slp@redhat.com>,
	Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	tony.luck@intel.com, npmccallum@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part1 RFC v3 20/22] x86/boot: Add Confidential Computing address to setup_header
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:43:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YNnSBl5asXjXIvfy@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210625181417.kaylo56pz4rlwwqr@amd.com>

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 01:14:17PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:
> So non-EFI case would rely purely on the setup_data entry for both (though
> we could still use boot_params->cc_blob_address to avoid the need to scan
> setup_data list in proper kernel as well, but scanning it early on doesn't
> have the same issues as with EFI config table so it's not really
> necessary there).

Yeah, sure, we can simply always use boot_params->cc_blob_address just
like acpi_rsdp_addr and always put the CC blob address there.

> I opted to give setup_data precedence over EFI, since if a bootloader goes
> the extra mile of packaging up a setup_data argument instead of just leaving
> it to firmware/EFI config table, it might be out of some extra need.  For
> example, if we do have a shared definition for both SEV and TDX, maybe the
> bootloader needs to synthesize multiple EFI table entries, and a unified
> setup_data will be easier for the kernel to consume than replicating that same
> work, and maybe over time the fallback can be deprecated. And containers will
> more than likely prefer setup_data approach, which might drive future changes
> that aren't in lockstep with EFI definitions as well.

Yah, that makes perfect sense. And you/Brijesh should put the gist of
that in a comment over the code so that people are aware. The less we
rely on firmware, the better.

> Brijesh can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the intent, and the
> setup_data approach definitely seems workable for that aspect.

Oki doki, I think we're all on the same page then. :-)

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette