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 sufficient for the boot/compressed->uncompressed parameter passing, but wouldn't actual bootloaders still need something in setup_data/setup_header to pass in the CC blob (for things like non-EFI environments/containers)? I was under the impression that using boot_params directly was 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.
