Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <eda6da3a-00fe-21c5-5a3d-3e06d21179f4@apertussolutions.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:01:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc:     Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        luto@amacapital.net, nivedita@alum.mit.edu,
        kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com
References: <20230504145023.835096-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com>
 <20230504145023.835096-5-ross.philipson@oracle.com>
 <20230512105554.GB14461@srcf.ucam.org>
 <30d5891d-4747-8d67-2667-ff07628740bd@apertussolutions.com>
 <20230515212206.GA2162@srcf.ucam.org>
 <df9d1260-41dd-034b-9dc6-14173c6c0d25@apertussolutions.com>
 <20230516014310.GA5403@srcf.ucam.org>
From:   "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file
In-Reply-To: <20230516014310.GA5403@srcf.ucam.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/15/23 21:43, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:41:00PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> What if I don't use grub, but use something that behaves equivalently?
>>> Which value should be used here?
>>
>> Generally we would request that the bootloader submit a request to register
>> for a value to be reserved in the spec. That aside, the intent here is to
>> allow for the possibility for the DLE handler to be independent from the
>> bootloader, but this does not have to be this way. If a non-open entity
>> decides to produce their own implementation, they can freely use a
>> unallocated value at their own risk that it could be allocated to another
>> bootloader in the future. Though in this scenario it likely would not matter
>> as the non-open DLE handler would only be present when the non-open
>> bootloader was present.
> 
> Is the expectation that the DLE will always be shipped with the
> bootloader? I think I'm not entirely clear on what's consuming this and
> why.
> 

No, in fact, an early idea proposed by a pair of us in the TrenchBoot 
community was to have it live either as a Runtime Service that was 
loaded by a UEFI app or in the coreboot UEFI payload.