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;
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:15:13 +0100
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To:     "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file
Message-ID: <20230616201513.GA30963@srcf.ucam.org>
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>
 <eda6da3a-00fe-21c5-5a3d-3e06d21179f4@apertussolutions.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <eda6da3a-00fe-21c5-5a3d-3e06d21179f4@apertussolutions.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> 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.

Ok, then I think I'm still confused. If I want to write a new bootloader 
but make use of the existing DLE, what contract am I establishing and 
what value should I be putting in here?