[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bdf8b2e1aa52ae8f4d5e2a6c92e0f8e426b97234.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:57:50 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
CC: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 017/113] KVM: Support KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS for
KVM_ENABLE_CAP
On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 13:26 -0800, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> > > TDX attestation includes the maximum number of vcpu that the guest can
> > > accommodate.
> > >
> >
> > I don't understand why "attestation" is the reason here. Let's say TDX is
> > used
> > w/o attestation, I don't think this patch can be discarded?
> >
> > IMHO the true reason is TDX has it's own control of maximum number of vcpus,
> > i.e. asking you to specify the value when creating the TD. Therefore, the
> > constant KVM_MAX_VCPUS doesn't work for TDX guest anymore.
>
> Without TDX attestation, this can be discarded. The TD is created with
> max_vcpus=KVM_MAX_VCPUS by default.
This parses like:
If we have attestation, the TD can be created with a user-specified non-default
value. Otherwise, the TD is always created with default value.
It doesn't make sense, right?
Because architecturally whether TD can be created with a user specified value
doesn't depend on attestation at all.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists