Re: [PATCH v9 04/19] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file

["Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Wed Jun 5, 2024 at 3:22 AM EEST, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed Jun 5, 2024 at 2:00 AM EEST,  wrote:
> > On 6/4/24 3:36 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Tue Jun 4, 2024 at 11:31 PM EEST,  wrote:
> > >> On 6/4/24 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >>> On Fri May 31, 2024 at 4:03 AM EEST, Ross Philipson wrote:
> > >>>> Introduce the Secure Launch Resource Table which forms the formal
> > >>>> interface between the pre and post launch code.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> If a uarch specific, I'd appreciate Intel SDM reference here so that I
> > >>> can look it up and compare. Like in section granularity.
> > >>
> > >> This table is meant to not be architecture specific though it can
> > >> contain architecture specific sub-entities. E.g. there is a TXT specific
> > >> table and in the future there will be an AMD and ARM one (and hopefully
> > >> some others). I hope that addresses what you are pointing out or maybe I
> > >> don't fully understand what you mean here...
> > > 
> > > At least Intel SDM has a definition of any possible architecture
> > > specific data structure. It is handy to also have this available
> > > in inline comment for any possible such structure pointing out the
> > > section where it is defined.
> >
> > The TXT specific structure is not defined in the SDM or the TXT dev 
> > guide. Part of it is driven by requirements in the TXT dev guide but 
> > that guide does not contain implementation details.
> >
> > That said, if you would like links to relevant documents in the comments 
> > before arch specific structures, I can add them.
>
> Vol. 2D 7-40, in the description of GETSEC[WAKEUP] there is in fact a
> description of MLE JOINT structure at least:
>
> 1. GDT limit (offset 0)
> 2. GDT base (offset 4)
> 3. Segment selector initializer (offset 8)
> 4. EIP (offset 12)
>
> So is this only exercised in protect mode, and not in long mode? Just
> wondering whether I should make a bug report on this for SDM or not.
>
> Especially this puzzles me, given that x86s won't have protected
> mode in the first place...

That raises a relevant question: will this ever work in x86s? SDM does
not really support that it would but it could be also just outdated
information.

I'm neither sure how or will AMD align with x86s.

Just point out a glitch...

BR, Jarkko