linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 16:56:48 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Varad Gautam <varad.gautam@...e.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: Impplement support for unaccepted memory

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:22:51PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:33:11PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I think Joerg's question was if TDX has a single ABI for all hypervisors.
> > The GHCI specification supports both hypervisor specific and hypervisor
> > agnostic calls. But these basic operations like MapGPA are all hypervisor
> > agnostic. The only differences would be in the existing hypervisor specific
> > PV code.
> 
> My point was that TDX and SEV-SNP going to be different and we need a way
> to hook the right protocol for each.

Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification. My misunderstanding was that
there could be per-hypervisor contract on what memory is pre-accepted
and what Linux is responsible for.

Thanks,

	Joerg