linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] TDX: Enable Dynamic PAMT

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: <0b3e3123-b15d-4dfd-8af5-710d140d1f7b@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 12:03:30 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
 "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
 <seanjc@...gle.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
 "kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>, "Annapurve, Vishal"
 <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
 "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
 "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] TDX: Enable Dynamic PAMT

On 9/26/25 12:00, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> So the problem is not fundamental to the approach I think. We just took
> a shortcut by ignoring the shared locks. For line-of-sight to a path to
> remove the global lock someday, I think we could make the 2MB granular
> locks be reader/writer to match the TDX module. Then around the
> SEAMCALLs that take these locks, we could take them on the kernel side
> in the right order for whichever SEAMCALL we are making.

Yeah, but what if the TDX module changes its locking scheme in 5 years
or 10? What happens to 6.17.9999-stable?