linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] TDX host: kexec/kdump support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20f12925-1c9c-4da7-b6b5-a0e9d4125c99@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:50:20 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, dave.hansen@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
 tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
 thomas.lendacky@....com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kas@...nel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com,
 dwmw@...zon.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, reinette.chatre@...el.com, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
 dan.j.williams@...el.com, ashish.kalra@....com, nik.borisov@...e.com,
 chao.gao@...el.com, sagis@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] TDX host: kexec/kdump support

On 7/17/25 23:46, Kai Huang wrote:
> This series is the latest attempt to support kexec on TDX host following
> Dave's suggestion to use a percpu boolean to control WBINVD during
> kexec.
> 
> Hi Boris/Tom,
> 
> As requested, I added the first patch to cleanup the last two 'unsigned
> int' parameters of the relocate_kernel() into one 'unsigned int' and pass
> flags instead.  The patch 2 (patch 1 in v3) also gets updated based on
> that.  Would you help to review?  Thanks.
> 
> I tested that both normal kexec and preserve_context kexec works (using
> the tools/testing/selftests/kexec/test_kexec_jump.sh).  But I don't have
> SME capable machine to test.
> 
> Hi Tom, I added your Reviewed-by and Tested-by in the patch 2 anyway
> since I believe the change is trivial and straightforward).  But due to
> the cleanup patch, I appreciate if you can help to test the first two
> patches again.  Thanks a lot!

I guess we're just waiting for a v5 with testb and an augmented comment 
in patch 1?

(Frankly, I am not sure I see any improvement with respect to v3.  When 
assembly is involved, what looks like a cleanup can make register usage 
more messy.  But since the code is there, I'm not going to ask Kai or 
anyone else to do anything).

Paolo