Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 17 Jan 2023 02:17:11 +0300 | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] x86/efi: Safely enable unaccepted memory in UEFI |
| |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:43:15AM -0800, Dionna Amalie Glaze wrote: > > > I still don't understand why we need to support every imaginable > > > combination of firmware, bootloader and OS. Unaccepted memory only > > > exists on a special kind of virtual machine, which provides very > > > little added value unless you opt into the security and attestation > > > features, which are all heavily based on firmware protocols. So why > > > should care about a EFI-aware bootloader calling ExitBootServices() > > > and subsequently doing a legacy boot of Linux on such systems? > > > > Why break what works? Some users want it. > > > > The users that want legacy boot features will not be broken,
Why do you call boot with a bootloader a legacy feature?
> they'll only get a safe view of the memory map. I don't think it's right > to choose unsafe behavior for a legacy setup.
Present memory map with unaccepted memory to OS that doesn't about it is perfectly safe. This portion of the memory will be ignored. It is "feature not [yet] implemented" case.
> > This patch adds complexity, breaks what works and the only upside will > > turn into a dead weight soon. > > > > There's alternative to add option to instruct firmware to accept all > > memory from VMM side. It will serve legacy OS that doesn't know about > > unaccepted memory and it is also can be use by latency-sensitive users > > later on (analog of qemu -mem-prealloc). > > > > This means that users of a distro that has not enabled unaccepted > memory support cannot simply start a VM with the usual command, but > instead have to know a baroque extra flag to get access to all the > memory that they configured the machine (and for a CSP customer, paid > for). That's not a good experience.
New features require enabling. It is not something new.
> With GCE at least, you can't (shouldn't) associate the boot feature > flag with a disk image because disks are mutable. If a customer > upgrades their kernel after initially starting their VM, they can't > remove the flag due to the way image annotations work.
I guess a new VM has to be created, right? Doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
The old will not break with upgraded kernel. Just not get benefit of the feature.
> All of this headache goes away by adopting a small patch to the kernel > that calls a 0-ary protocol interface and keeping safe acceptance > behavior in the firmware. I think Gerd is right here that we should > treat it as a transition feature that we can remove later.
Removing a feature is harder than adding one. How do you define that "later" has come?
Anyway, I think we walk in a circle. I consider it a misfeature. If you want still go this path, please add my
Nacked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
-- Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |