[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec07b62e266aa95d998c725336e773b8bc78225d.camel@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:23:28 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Annapurve, Vishal"
<vannapurve@...gle.com>, "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
CC: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "ashish.kalra@....com"
<ashish.kalra@....com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "kas@...nel.org"
<kas@...nel.org>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>, "nik.borisov@...e.com"
<nik.borisov@...e.com>, "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "sagis@...gle.com" <sagis@...gle.com>, "Chen, Farrah"
<farrah.chen@...el.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com"
<binbin.wu@...ux.intel.com>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Williams, Dan J"
<dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] x86/kexec: Disable kexec/kdump on platforms with TDX
partial write erratum
On Mon, 2025-10-27 at 00:50 +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> >
> > IIUC, kernel doesn't donate any of it's available memory to TDX module
> > if TDX is not actually enabled (i.e. if "kvm.intel.tdx=y" kernel
> > command line parameter is missing).
>
> Right (for now KVM is the only in-kernel TDX user).
>
> >
> > Why is it unsafe to allow kexec/kdump if "kvm.intel.tdx=y" is not
> > supplied to the kernel?
>
> It can be relaxed. Please see the above quoted text from the changelog:
>
> > It's feasible to further relax this limitation, i.e., only fail kexec
> > when TDX is actually enabled by the kernel. But this is still a half
> > measure compared to resetting TDX private memory so just do the simplest
> > thing for now.
I think KVM could be re-inserted with different module params? As in, the two
in-tree users could be two separate insertions of the KVM module. That seems
like something that could easily come up in the real world, if a user re-inserts
for the purpose of enabling TDX. I think the above quote was talking about
another way of checking if it's enabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists