linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/30] TDX KVM selftests

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: <0976e0d50b1620c0118b8a5020b90f3959d47b4a.camel@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:11:55 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
	<seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "Aktas, Erdem" <erdemaktas@...gle.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>, "Afranji, Ryan"
	<afranji@...gle.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Chatre, Reinette"
	<reinette.chatre@...el.com>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com"
	<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"ackerleytng@...gle.com" <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, "Yamahata, Isaku"
	<isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "pratikrajesh.sampat@....com"
	<pratikrajesh.sampat@....com>, "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@...el.com>, "Wang,
 Roger" <runanwang@...gle.com>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, "ajones@...tanamicro.com"
	<ajones@...tanamicro.com>, "oliver.upton@...ux.dev" <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/30] TDX KVM selftests

On Mon, 2025-08-11 at 10:38 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Please make cleaning up this mess the highest priority for TDX upstreaming.  I
> am _thrilled_ (honestly) at the amount test coverage that has been developed for
> TDX.  But I am equally angry that so much effort is being put into newfangled
> TDX features, and that so little effort is being put into helping review and
> polish this series.  I refuse to believe that I am the only person that could
> look at the above code and come to the conclusion that it's simply unnacceptable.

We were talking about this internally. Behind the scenes Reinette had actually
spent a pretty large amount of time (the majority?) cleaning this series up
actually, to even this level. This was some code cleanup, but also functional
stuff like rooting out bugs where tests would give false positive passes. But
the plan of action was to have some other TDX developers start reviewing it on
the Intel side. I was also wondering how much time Sagi has to spend on it for
follow on versions? We might want to think about a more direct process for
changes->posting depending on if Sagi is able to spend more time.

But Sean, if you want to save some time I think we can just accelerate this
other reviewing. As far as new-fangled features, having this upstream is
important even for that, because we are currently having to keep these tests
plus follow on tests in sync across various development branches. So yea, it's
time to get this over the line.