On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 09:27:41AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:19:11PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote:

quoted

One downside to this is we still need something in the boot protocol,
either via setup_data, or setup_header directly.

Huh, now I'm confused. You gave the acpi_rsdp_addr example and I thought
that should be enough, that's why I suggested boot_params.

Well, that's sufficient for the boot/compressed->uncompressed parameter
passing, but wouldn't actual bootloaders still need something in
setup_data/setup_header to pass in the CC blob (for things like non-EFI
environments/containers)? I was under the impression that using
boot_params directly was more of a legacy/ad-hoc thing, is that
accurate?

Maybe you should point me to the code which does what you need so that I
can get a better idea...

quoted

Having it in setup_header avoids the need to also have to add a field
to boot_params for the boot/compressed->uncompressed passing, but
maybe that's not a good enough justification. Perhaps if the TDX folks
have similar needs though.

Yes, reportedly they do so I guess the solution should be
vendor-agnostic. Let's see what they need first.

Ok, good to know.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.