On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 at 21:14, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:29:32AM -0700, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote: > > How about instead of the limited resource of UTS_VERSION, we add a > > SETUP_BOOT_FEATURES enum for setup_data in the boot header? That would > > be easier to parse out and more extensible in the future. > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/x86/boot.html?highlight=boot > > > > This can contain a bitmap of a number of features that we currently > > need manual tagging for, such as SEV guest support, SEV-SNP guest > > support, TDX guest support, and (CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY, TDX) or > > (CONFIG_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY, SEV-SNP). > > The VMM, UEFI, or boot loader can read these from the images/kernels > > and have the appropriate behavior. > > I think for stuff like that you want loadflags or xloadflags in the > setup header. > Please, no. Let's not invent Linux/x86 specific hacks to infer whether or not the kernel is capable of accepting memory when it is perfectly capable of telling us directly. We will surely need something analogous on other architectures in the future as well, so the setup header is definitely not the right place for this. The 'bootloader that calls EBS()' case does not apply to Linux, and given that we are talking specifically about confidential computing VMs here, we can afford to be normative and define something generic that works well for us. So let's define a way for the EFI stub to signal to the firmware (before EBS()) that it will take control of accepting memory. The 'bootloader that calls EBS()' case can invent something along the lines of what has been proposed in this thread to infer the capabilities of the kernel (and decide what to signal to the firmware). But we have no need for this additional complexity on Linux.
