On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:34:15AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/13/23 10:23, Dionna Glaze via groups.io wrote: > >> However, *NONE* of this points me in the direction of saying that we > >> should have an OS/firmware protocol to negotiate whether the firmware or > >> OS does page acceptance other than the existing UEFI memory map bit. > > We know of distributions that are going to release SEV-SNP support > > without unaccepted memory support, > > Well, I guess that's a bit of a different problem. > > I'd love to hear from the distros what they're planning on carrying > outside of mainline and what their plans are for the kernel side of this > series.
Fedora has near zero additional patches, so it pretty much depends on how mainline merges stuff. If SEV-SNP or TDX or both will land in an upstream release before support for unaccepted memory lands too you'll see that in Fedora kernels, and I guess likewise in most non-enterprise distros. RHEL/CentOS typically requires mainline acceptance too for backports, so it likewise depends on upstream merging, and additionally rhel release planning comes into play. In case unaccepted memory support lands later than TDX it could (depending on timing) very well be that the choices are to either backport TDX without unaccepted memory support, or move both TDX support and unaccepted memory support to a later release. take care, Gerd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#98564): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/98564 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/96236145/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
