linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v19 037/130] KVM: TDX: Make KVM_CAP_MAX

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]

Message-ID: <BL1PR11MB5978C5DAC10C962AFD1DB764F7362@BL1PR11MB5978.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:47:42 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, Binbin Wu
	<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, Paolo Bonzini
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "Sean
 Christopherson" <seanjc@...gle.com>, Sagi Shahar <sagis@...gle.com>, "Chen,
 Bo2" <chen.bo@...el.com>, "Yuan, Hang" <hang.yuan@...el.com>, "Zhang, Tina"
	<tina.zhang@...el.com>, "isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com"
	<isaku.yamahata@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v19 037/130] KVM: TDX: Make KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS backend
 specific

> > Here, "verified", I think Kai wanted to emphasize that the value of
> > max_vcpus passed in via KVM_TDX_INIT_VM should be checked against the
> > value configured via KVM_CAP_MAX_VCPUS?
> >
> > Maybe "verified and used" ?
> 
> Ok. I don't have strong opinion here.

It depends on how you implement that patch.  

If we don't pass 'max_vcpus' in that patch, there's nothing to verify really.