While normal booting is properly supported on both x86 and Arm64, secure
boot reportedly requires quite a bit more work to be actually usable
(and providing the intended guarantees). The mere use of the shim
protocol for verifying the Dom0 kernel image isn't enough.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/SUPPORT.md
+++ b/SUPPORT.md
@@ -63,6 +63,16 @@ For the Cortex A57 r0p0 - r1p1, see Erra
     Status, x86 PV: Supported
     Status, ARM: Experimental
 
+### Host EFI Boot
+
+    Status, x86: Supported
+    Status, Arm64: Supported
+
+### Host EFI Secure Boot
+
+    Status, x86: Experimental
+    Status, Arm64: Experimental
+
 ### x86/Intel Platform QoS Technologies
 
     Status: Tech Preview

Hi Jan,

On 11/05/2023 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While normal booting is properly supported on both x86 and Arm64, secure
> boot reportedly requires quite a bit more work to be actually usable
> (and providing the intended guarantees). The mere use of the shim
> protocol for verifying the Dom0 kernel image isn't enough.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>

Cheers,

> 
> --- a/SUPPORT.md
> +++ b/SUPPORT.md
> @@ -63,6 +63,16 @@ For the Cortex A57 r0p0 - r1p1, see Erra
>       Status, x86 PV: Supported
>       Status, ARM: Experimental
>   
> +### Host EFI Boot
> +
> +    Status, x86: Supported
> +    Status, Arm64: Supported
> +
> +### Host EFI Secure Boot
> +
> +    Status, x86: Experimental
> +    Status, Arm64: Experimental
> +
>   ### x86/Intel Platform QoS Technologies
>   
>       Status: Tech Preview

-- 
Julien Grall

On 11/05/2023 3:34 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While normal booting is properly supported on both x86 and Arm64, secure
> boot reportedly requires quite a bit more work to be actually usable
> (and providing the intended guarantees). The mere use of the shim
> protocol for verifying the Dom0 kernel image isn't enough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>