On 22/09/2016 20:37, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > Unless this is part of some spec, it's easier if things are the same in
>> > SME and SEV.
> Yeah, I was pondering over how sprinkling sev_active checks might not be
> so clean.
> I'm wondering if we could make the EFI regions presented to the guest
> unencrypted too, as part of some SEV-specific init routine so that the
> guest kernel doesn't need to do anything different.

That too, but why not fix it in the firmware?...  (Again, if there's any
MSFT guy looking at this offlist, let's involve him in the discussion).

devel mailing list

Reply via email to