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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:01:09PM -0400, Daniel P. Smith wrote:
> 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.

Ok, then I think I'm still confused. If I want to write a new bootloader 
but make use of the existing DLE, what contract am I establishing and 
what value should I be putting in here?