Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu RFC] qapi: add "firmware.json"

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 04/09/18 10:26, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> +# {
>> +#     "executable": {
>> +#         "pathname": "/usr/share/OVMF/OVMF_CODE.secboot.fd",
>> +#         "description": "OVMF with Secure Boot and SMM-protected varstore",
>> +#         "tags": [
>> +#             "FD_SIZE_4MB",
>> +#             "IA32X64",
>> +#             "SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE",
>> +#             "SMM_REQUIRE"
>> +#         ]
>> +#     },
>> +#     "type": "uefi",
>> +#     "targets": [
>> +#         "x86_64"
>> +#     ],
>> +#     "sysfw-map": {
>> +#         "device": "flash",
>> +#         "write": "denied"
>> +#     },
>> +#     "nvram-slots": [
>> +#         {
>> +#             "slot-id": 1,
>> +#             "nvram-map" : {
>> +#                 "device": "flash",
>> +#                 "write": "restricted-to-secure-context"
>> +#             },
> 
> What is "slot-id"?  The pflash index?

Yes, it might be defined like that, for the i440fx and q35 machine
types. This correspondence would be implemented in libvirtd, I suppose.

However, I don't think such a correspondence is mandatory. At first
approach, slot-id is just the key that tells the nvramslots apart.

> shouldn't we also specify the
> index for the executable somewhere?

Maybe :)

> Maybe the field should be moved
> into FirmwareMapping?

I couldn't come up with a good use case where you wouldn't map the
*system* firmware in a predefined pflash unit (or other device unit). So
I thought that needed no slot-id.

Thanks
Laszlo