linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/tdx: Add prctl to allow userlevel TDX hypercalls

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: <20240723050431.GA10164@prme-hs2-i1009>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:04:40 -0700
From: Tim Merrifield <tim.merrifield@...adcom.com>
To: "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
	Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>,
	Alexey Makhalov <alexey.makhalov@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, alex.james@...adcom.com,
	doug.covelli@...adcom.com, jeffrey.sheldon@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/tdx: Add prctl to allow userlevel TDX hypercalls


Thanks for the review, Kirill.

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 03:19:54PM +0300, Kirill A . Shutemov wrote:
> Hm. Per-thread flag is odd. I think it should be per-process.

This is the only point I might need some clarification on. I agree
there doesn't seem to be much value in allowing per-thread control,
but I don't see any precedence for setting per-process flags through
arch_prctl or similar interfaces. Am I missing something?