From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA8321FF15C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed,  5 Mar 2025 15:18:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 43C03178FE;
	Wed,  5 Mar 2025 15:18:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <f69d7f3c-d655-4173-b9e1-746b9e1f4fb3@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:18:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Philipp Giersfeld <philipp.giersfeld@canarybit.eu>
References: <20250224123714.2662460-1-philipp.giersfeld@canarybit.eu>
 <20250224123714.2662460-3-philipp.giersfeld@canarybit.eu>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250224123714.2662460-3-philipp.giersfeld@canarybit.eu>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.042 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH edk2-firmware v3 2/5] Add OVMF targets for
 AMD SEV-ES and SEV-SNP
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 24.02.25 um 13:37 schrieb Philipp Giersfeld:
> AMD SEV-SNP boots with a single volatile firmware image OVMF.fd via the
> -bios option.
> 
> Currently, an SEV-enabled VM will not boot with an OVMF
> firmware that was compiled with `SECURE_BOOT_ENABLE` [1].
> 
> Furthermore, during testing, SEV-enabled amchines did not boot with
> `SMM_REQUIRE`.
> 
> Therefore, introduce a new target build-ovmf-cvm that builds OVMF
> firmware suitable for AMD SEV.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/pull/6285
> 

This has been merged in edk2-stable202502, which is already out now. I'd
prefer going directly for that tag. Can we avoid splitting out the
SMM_REQUIRE flag then?


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel