[PATCH v6 04/14] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file

[Daniel P. Smith]

On 5/15/23 21:43, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:41:00PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
>> On 5/15/23 17:22, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> What if I don't use grub, but use something that behaves equivalently?
>>> Which value should be used here?
>>
>> Generally we would request that the bootloader submit a request to register
>> for a value to be reserved in the spec. That aside, the intent here is to
>> allow for the possibility for the DLE handler to be independent from the
>> bootloader, but this does not have to be this way. If a non-open entity
>> decides to produce their own implementation, they can freely use a
>> unallocated value at their own risk that it could be allocated to another
>> bootloader in the future. Though in this scenario it likely would not matter
>> as the non-open DLE handler would only be present when the non-open
>> bootloader was present.
> 
> Is the expectation that the DLE will always be shipped with the
> bootloader? I think I'm not entirely clear on what's consuming this and
> why.
> 

No, in fact, an early idea proposed by a pair of us in the TrenchBoot 
community was to have it live either as a Runtime Service that was 
loaded by a UEFI app or in the coreboot UEFI payload.