On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 09:27:41AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:19:11PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > > One downside to this is we still need something in the boot protocol, > > either via setup_data, or setup_header directly. > > Huh, now I'm confused. You gave the acpi_rsdp_addr example and I thought > that should be enough, that's why I suggested boot_params. Well, that's enough for the boot/compressed->uncompressed parameter passing, but would a bootloader be allowed to use that same approach to pass in the CC blob (for things like non-EFI/containers)? I was under the impression that for that case we'd still want something in setup_header/setup_data for bootloaders to use, and that using boot_params directly is more of a legacy/ad-hoc thing. Is that accurate? > > Maybe you should point me to the code which does what you need so that I > can get a better idea... > > > Having it in setup_header avoids the need to also have to add a field > > to boot_params for the boot/compressed->uncompressed passing, but > > maybe that's not a good enough justification. Perhaps if the TDX folks > > have similar needs though. > > Yes, reportedly they do so I guess the solution should be > vendor-agnostic. Let's see what they need first. Ok, good to know. > > Thx. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpeople.kernel.org%2Ftglx%2Fnotes-about-netiquette&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.roth%40amd.com%7C876d84222a2d4c2fc14008d936e19194%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637601164763100440%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=XIsAM9LxAOr7LlsJBkT33OuxywezofF%2Bq7%2FEqxpJOVk%3D&reserved=0
