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, 24 Jun 2022 11:57:20 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        len.brown@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, reinette.chatre@...el.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com,
        isaku.yamahata@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, Jason@...c4.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com, frederic@...nel.org,
        yuehaibing@...wei.com, dongli.zhang@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/22] cc_platform: Add new attribute to prevent ACPI
 CPU hotplug

On 6/22/22 04:15, Kai Huang wrote:
> Platforms with confidential computing technology may not support ACPI
> CPU hotplug when such technology is enabled by the BIOS.  Examples
> include Intel platforms which support Intel Trust Domain Extensions
> (TDX).
> 
> If the kernel ever receives ACPI CPU hotplug event, it is likely a BIOS
> bug.  For ACPI CPU hot-add, the kernel should speak out this is a BIOS
> bug and reject the new CPU.  For hot-removal, for simplicity just assume
> the kernel cannot continue to work normally, and BUG().

So, the kernel is now declaring ACPI CPU hotplug and TDX to be
incompatible and even BUG()'ing if we see them together.  Has anyone
told the firmware guys about this?  Is this in a spec somewhere?  When
the kernel goes boom, are the firmware folks going to cry "Kernel bug!!"?

This doesn't seem like something the kernel should be doing unilaterally.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ