Re: SVSM Development Call July 2nd, 2025
"Relph, Richard" <[email protected]> Mon, 7 Jul 2025 08:50:24 -0500
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.coconut-svsm,dev.linux.lists.linux-coco |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/4/2025 11:39 AM, Jörg Rödel wrote: > > Hi Gerd, > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 12:36:07PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:12:03AM +0200, Jörg Rödel wrote: >>> Meeting minutes are now posted: >>> >>> https://github.com/coconut-svsm/governance/pull/65 >> >> <quote> >> SVSM deciding its memory needs and informing OVMF. Peter Fang started >> exploring this, but it's not trivial and will take time to establish a >> good protocol for memory consumption and handoff. >> </quote> >> >> What exactly we are talking about? In the call alot of the discussion >> centered around tracking the state of pages, and it wasn't totally clear >> whenever that was an independent discussion or not ... >> >> From OVMF perspective I don't see this as a big problem, assuming we are >> talking about static allocation. The memory discovery code is designed >> around e820. Typically OVMF simply loads the e820 table from qemu via >> fw_cfg. But there are multiple ways to get the memory map, when running >> on xen or cloud hypervisor things are handled in a different way. >> Adding one more option for svsm surely is possible. > > The idea is that COCONUT provides an IGVM memory map to OVMF, which takes it as > a base for its memory map instead of the E820 from FWCFG. > > Longer term it would be great to fully enable OVMF for IGVM, so that it can > also consume some of the ACPI tables from there instead of FWCFG. But that is > future stuff, what we need for now is the memory map. As I heard it, the concern is that maintaining page state in SVSM (not OVMF) will eventually require SVSM to have access to a dynamic amount of memory. Right now, AFAIK, SVSM has no way to request memory from either the host or the guest. Richard