[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0c16dc46ca0b21bffb2abeb3227d4d7f63ebaac.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:22:30 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai"
<kai.huang@...el.com>
CC: "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "sagis@...gle.com"
<sagis@...gle.com>, "dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"isaku.yamahata@...il.com" <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>, "Aktas, Erdem"
<erdemaktas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] KVM: x86/mmu: Bug the VM if kvm_zap_gfn_range() is
called for TDX
On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 13:27 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
>
> kvm_zap_gfn_range() looks a generic function. I think it makes more sense
> to let the callers to explicitly check whether VM is TDX guest and do the
> KVM_BUG_ON()?
Other TDX changes will prevent this function getting called. So basically like
you are suggesting. This change is to catch any new cases that pop up, which we
can't do at the caller.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists