[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c07fa2b7-d453-4a9d-b1fc-e3e96514a8d3@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 15:46:23 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
seanjc@...gle.com, erdemaktas@...gle.com, ackerleytng@...gle.com,
jxgao@...gle.com, sagis@...gle.com, oupton@...gle.com, pgonda@...gle.com,
kirill@...temov.name, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, chao.p.peng@...ux.intel.com,
isaku.yamahata@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] x86/tdx: Route safe halt execution via
tdx_safe_halt()
On 2/11/25 00:32, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> If CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL is disabled, "sti;hlt" sequences can still get
>> executed from TDX VMs via paths like:
>> acpi_safe_halt() =>
>> raw_safe_halt() =>
>> arch_safe_halt() =>
>> native_safe_halt()
>> There is a long term plan to fix these paths by carving out
>> irq.safe_halt() outside paravirt framework.
> I don't think it is acceptable to keep !PARAVIRT_XXL (read no-Xen) config
> broken.
Oh, I thought it took PARAVIRT_XXL=y to even trigger this issue. Was I
just confused?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists