Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230113212926.2904735-1-dionnaglaze@google.com>
 <20230113222024.rp2erl54vx3grdbd@box.shutemov.name> <20230116105648.63hsxnmj2juwudmu@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
 <def9b0b5-b880-be99-fa95-b05d76a91824@intel.com> <1818a72f-31ef-07b0-d1b4-6a8904636db2@amd.com>
 <CAMj1kXG7s_B1nyEgsxFRRvUzsWNXcFfTszRA2hKY=_a-L24PZg@mail.gmail.com> <e1986845-9eb9-2147-5073-5d7a45633aba@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <e1986845-9eb9-2147-5073-5d7a45633aba@intel.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:46:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXG=rec5HSxfteQnc6ZZ0RnQZq+-wX6HNG5gm4tiSOuH_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.