lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:30:42 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Sean Christopherson <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        David Rientjes <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Tom Lendacky <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Varad Gautam <>,
        Dario Faggioli <>,,,,,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] efi/x86: Implement support for unaccepted memory

On 8/9/21 11:26 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> +	bool
> +	depends on EFI_STUB
> +	help
> +	   Some Virtual Machine platforms, such as Intel TDX, introduce
> +	   the concept of memory acceptance, requiring memory to be accepted
> +	   before it can be used by the guest. This protects against a class of
> +	   attacks by the virtual machine platform.
> +
> +	   This option adds support for unaccepted memory and makes such memory
> +	   usable by kernel.

Do we really need a full-blown user-visible option here?  If we, for
instance, just did:

	depends on EFI_STUB

it could be 'select'ed from the TDX Kconfig and no users would ever be
bothered with it.  Would a user *ever* turn this on if they don't have
TDX (or equivalent)?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists