On June 6, 2021 7:30 PM, Michael Brown Wrote: > On 06/06/2021 03:03, Min Xu wrote: > >> (11) "Page table should support both 4-level and 5-level page table" > >> > >> As a general development strategy, I would suggest building TDX > >> support in small, well-isolated layers. 5-level paging is not enabled > >> (has never been tested, to my knowledge) with OVMF on QEMU/KVM, > >> regardless of confidential computing, for starters. If 5-level paging > >> is a strict requirement for TDX, then it arguably needs to be > >> implemented independently of TDX, at first. So that the common edk2 > >> architecture be at least testable on QEMU/KVM with 5-level paging > >> enabled. > >> > > Yes, 5-level paging is a strict requirement for TDX. I would wait for > > the conclusion of the *one binary*. > > The "one binary" decision isn't relevant here, is it? It would make more > sense to implement 5-level paging within the base EDK2 architecture. This > would allow that feature to be tested in isolation from TDX (and > consequently tested more widely), and would reduce the distance between > standard builds and TDX builds. >
In our first version of TDVF, a static 5-level page table is used. It is simple and straight forward. But for *one binary* solution, we have to consider the compatibility with the current 4-level page table. That's why I said "I would wait for the conclusion of the *one binary*" Thanks for the suggestion. We will discuss the it internally first. > Michael -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#76110): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/76110 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83283616/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
