On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 03:20:55PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig b/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig > > index 6787ed8dfacf..8aa8adf0bcb5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig > > @@ -314,6 +314,20 @@ config EFI_COCO_SECRET > > virt/coco/efi_secret module to access the secrets, which in turn > > allows userspace programs to access the injected secrets. > > > > +config UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > > + bool > > + depends on EFI_STUB > > This still doesn't make a whole lotta sense. If I do "make menuconfig" I don't > see the help text because that bool doesn't have a string prompt. So who is that > help text for? It is a form of documentation for a developer. The same happens for other options. For instance, BOOT_VESA_SUPPORT or ARCH_HAS_CURRENT_STACK_POINTER. Yes, it is not visible user, but I still think it is helpful for a developer to understand what the option does. > Then, in the last patch you have > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -888,6 +888,8 @@ config INTEL_TDX_GUEST > select ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM > select X86_MEM_ENCRYPT > select X86_MCE > + select UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > + select EFI_STUB > > I guess you want to select UNACCEPTED_MEMORY only. I had to rework it as config INTEL_TDX_GUEST ... depends on EFI_STUB select UNACCEPTED_MEMORY Naked select UNACCEPTED_MEMORY doesn't work if EFI and EFI_STUB is disabled: WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for UNACCEPTED_MEMORY Depends on [n]: EFI [=n] && EFI_STUB [=n] Selected by [y]: - INTEL_TDX_GUEST [=y] && HYPERVISOR_GUEST [=y] && X86_64 [=y] && CPU_SUP_INTEL [=y] && X86_X2APIC [=y] IIUC, the alternative is to have selects all the way down the option tree. > > And I've already mentioned this whole mess: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/Yt%2BnOeLMqRxjObbx@xxxxxxx > > Please incorporate all review comments before sending a new version of > your patch. > > Ignoring review feedback is a very unfriendly thing to do: > > - if you agree with the feedback, you work it in in the next revision > > - if you don't agree, you *say* *why* you don't Sorry, it was not my intention. I misread your comment and focused on build issues around the option. -- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
