Re: [PATCH v2 20/22] x86/slaunch: support EFI boot

[Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 11:58:49AM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Why is it better for Xen to rely on the bootloader to implement the
> specification, instead of xen.efi itself implementing secure launch?
> That would make secure launch significantly more usable.  For an
> initial implementation it makes sense to rely on the bootloader, but
> in the future it would be better for xen.efi to have its own
> implementation.

That might be true when looking at the very limited use case. But if you
look at the broader ecosystem, having a common part in the bootloader
makes much more sense, as it can be reused for different kernels without
duplicating a lot of work.

- -- 
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhrpukzGPukRmQqkK24/THMrX1ywFAmgkwNEACgkQ24/THMrX
1yypmggAiBWdTT3yTZKYA/28IVhTXRPemEGGqdDcqyC2mDQt102kgF7m46LwSv5I
eK1xY7Hz6AG3Mp9pRH4Jltx5j7SMZ0zzesYuADEpDTNIEWx6Xh+W6AQ5ttAKco1M
tcUFiYaDujesLwRNHJpjH1D9Ih82d1SbUoNyjBgnn1cmX2hXXntVDyXttz6P+xUy
Vl8eF3NYC90+sdc0g8aaKKWe6GqDzsBRj+heISYtymiWRcePWgFWMVMrIDB4Yqmo
+KnDYWsDTQn4Bddu1O6AVVVhvlnhgzP8sHWb20gjQpZG2jwJd1DQcNwQy2Ae04xS
Fxx8mBC75utOGNqnft/Pv098BnmYqQ==
=AulS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----