From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34176EB64D7 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 20:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229518AbjFPUPS (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:15:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48952 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229470AbjFPUPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:15:17 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk (cavan.codon.org.uk [176.126.240.207]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0D4430DD; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 13:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by cavan.codon.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 74F3540A72; Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:15:13 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 21:15:13 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: "Daniel P. Smith" Cc: Ross Philipson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, ardb@kernel.org, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, luto@amacapital.net, nivedita@alum.mit.edu, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com, trenchboot-devel@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file Message-ID: <20230616201513.GA30963@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20230504145023.835096-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <20230504145023.835096-5-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <20230512105554.GB14461@srcf.ucam.org> <30d5891d-4747-8d67-2667-ff07628740bd@apertussolutions.com> <20230515212206.GA2162@srcf.ucam.org> <20230516014310.GA5403@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 5/15/23 21:43, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:41:00PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > > > On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > What if I don't use grub, but use something that behaves equivalently? > > > > Which value should be used here? > > > > > > Generally we would request that the bootloader submit a request to register > > > for a value to be reserved in the spec. That aside, the intent here is to > > > allow for the possibility for the DLE handler to be independent from the > > > bootloader, but this does not have to be this way. If a non-open entity > > > decides to produce their own implementation, they can freely use a > > > unallocated value at their own risk that it could be allocated to another > > > bootloader in the future. Though in this scenario it likely would not matter > > > as the non-open DLE handler would only be present when the non-open > > > bootloader was present. > > > > Is the expectation that the DLE will always be shipped with the > > bootloader? I think I'm not entirely clear on what's consuming this and > > why. > > > > No, in fact, an early idea proposed by a pair of us in the TrenchBoot > community was to have it live either as a Runtime Service that was loaded by > a UEFI app or in the coreboot UEFI payload. Ok, then I think I'm still confused. If I want to write a new bootloader but make use of the existing DLE, what contract am I establishing and what value should I be putting in here?