On 04/21/21 19:07, Erdem Aktas wrote:
> Hi Laszlo,
>
> I am sorry to hear that it sounded like we are dictating a certain
> approach. Although I can see why it sounded that way, it certainly was not
> my intention.
> We want to work with the EDK2 community to have a solution that is
> beneficial
Hi Laszlo,
I am sorry to hear that it sounded like we are dictating a certain
approach. Although I can see why it sounded that way, it certainly was not
my intention.
We want to work with the EDK2 community to have a solution that is
beneficial for everyone and we appreciate the inputs that we
On 04/21/21 02:38, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Hello
> Do we have some conclusion on this topic?
>
> Do we agree the one-binary solution in OVMF or we need more discussion?
Well it's not technically impossible to do, just very ugly and brittle.
And I'm doubtful that this is a unique problem ("just fix
Hello
Do we have some conclusion on this topic?
Do we agree the one-binary solution in OVMF or we need more discussion?
Thank you
Yao Jiewen
> -Original Message-
> From: Erdem Aktas
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 3:43 AM
> To: Paolo Bonzini
> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io;
Thanks Paolo.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:59 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 15/04/21 01:34, Erdem Aktas wrote:
> > We do not want to generate different binaries for AMD, Intel, Intel
> > with TDX, AMD with SEV/SNP etc
>
> My question is why the user would want a single binary for VMs with and
>
On 15/04/21 01:34, Erdem Aktas wrote:
We do not want to generate different binaries for AMD, Intel, Intel
with TDX, AMD with SEV/SNP etc
My question is why the user would want a single binary for VMs with and
without TDX/SNP. I know there is attestation, but why would you even
want the
Hi all,
>>Can we please pry a little bit at that "one binary" requirement?
I think when we call it a "one binary" requirement, it sounds like we
are asking something new but what we are asking is pretty much
captured by James Bottomley.
We do not want to generate different binaries for AMD,
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 11:54 +, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> I totally agree with you that from security perspective, the best
> idea to isolate AMD SEV/Intel TDX from standard OVMF.
There's a big difference between building tuned binaries and separating
the subsystems entirely. Ideally we don't want
I totally agree with you that from security perspective, the best idea to
isolate AMD SEV/Intel TDX from standard OVMF.
Do you want to propose move AMD SEV support to another SEC?
> -Original Message-
> From: devel@edk2.groups.io On Behalf Of Dr. David
> Alan Gilbert
> Sent: Monday,
* Laszlo Ersek (ler...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 04/09/21 15:44, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> > Hi Laszlo
> > Thanks.
> >
> > We did provide a separate binary in the beginning - see
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/TDVF, with same goal - easy
> > to maintain and develop. A clean
On 04/09/21 15:44, Yao, Jiewen wrote:
> Hi Laszlo
> Thanks.
>
> We did provide a separate binary in the beginning - see
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging/tree/TDVF, with same goal - easy to
> maintain and develop. A clean solution, definitely.
>
> However, we got requirement to
11 matches
Mail list logo
