[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ffb7a3b-cf20-617a-e4f1-8a6a8a2c5972@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 07:15:21 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] /dev/mem: Do not map unaccepted memory
On 9/6/23 00:39, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Support for unaccepted memory was added recently, refer commit
> dcdfdd40fa82 ("mm: Add support for unaccepted memory"), whereby
> a virtual machine may need to accept memory before it can be used.
>
> Do not map unaccepted memory because it can cause the guest to fail.
Doesn't /dev/mem already provide a billion ways for someone to shoot
themselves in the foot? TDX seems to have added the 1,000,000,001st.
Is this really worth patching?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists