[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a94595b5298a89f527575b4e7b963883939c102.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:22:18 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "Zhao, Yan Y"
<yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
CC: "quic_eberman@...cinc.com" <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>, "Li, Xiaoyao"
<xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, "Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>, "Hansen, Dave"
<dave.hansen@...el.com>, "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "tabba@...gle.com"
<tabba@...gle.com>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>, "Shutemov, Kirill"
<kirill.shutemov@...el.com>, "michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com"
<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Peng, Chao P" <chao.p.peng@...el.com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Annapurve, Vishal"
<vannapurve@...gle.com>, "jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>, "Miao, Jun"
<jun.miao@...el.com>, "Li, Zhiquan1" <zhiquan1.li@...el.com>,
"pgonda@...gle.com" <pgonda@...gle.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/21] KVM: TDX: Increase/decrease folio ref for huge
pages
On Tue, 2025-06-24 at 14:29 -0700, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> I have another option h to add: if there is a unmapping error from TDX,
> can it be an indication of compromise, in terms of security? Should TDX
> continue to be trusted to run the TD or other TDs securely? If there is
> some unmapping error, could correctness in the entire host be in
> question?
Maybe, but it's the TDX module's job to do something about this. The threat
model of TDX doesn't involve the host VMM ensuring integrity of the TD.
>
> If either correctness or security is broken, would it be acceptable to
> do a full BUG_ON and crash the system, since neither TDX nor regular VMs
> on the host should trusted to run correctly after this kind of error?
BUG_ON() won't be acceptable. See Linus' opinion on the subject. The standard
practice is to warn and let people run panic_on_warn if they want to be
paranoid. And we already will generate a warning so it's possible to configure
for this behavior today.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists