linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/virt/tdx: Remove __user annotation from kernel pointer

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: <aQKciMQG9y-szKUm@google.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 16:00:24 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, 
	"kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, 
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/virt/tdx: Remove __user annotation from kernel pointer

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/29/25 14:06, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > For the KVM side of tdx, the commits are getting prefixed with "KVM: TDX: ", and
> > "x86/virt/tdx" is being used arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/tdx.c. It's probably not too
> > late to adopt the one true naming scheme. I don't have a strong preference
> > except some consistency and that the maintainers agree :)
> 
> Yeah, I just picked one. I honestly don't care what we do in the end.

I do.  Being able to quickly determine if something touches KVM is valuable.  TDX
blurs the line since much of the code is split across KVM and x86/virt, but I
still find value in differentiating when possible.

> I was also probably just going to send these in the tip/x86/tdx branch unless
> anyone screams, so I did it the tip-ish way.

But this doesn't have anything to do with what tree the patches get routed through.
Scopes are always about what files/content is changing.

I also don't undertand why you would take these through tip.  They only touch
KVM (which is annoying hard to see since there's no shortlog in the cover letter).
Sure, they're minor changes and _probably_ won't conflict with anything, but again
I don't see how that matters.  These are clearly KVM patches.