linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <420865fb-34cc-43a8-820c-b15b5f24a27c@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 21:36:58 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>, "Pratik R. Sampat" <prsampat@....com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
 x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
 mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, osalvador@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com,
 michael.roth@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] mm: Add support for unaccepted memory hotplug

On 12/1/25 21:25, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 09:10:26PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> Just to be clear, I don't think it exist and also I don't think that it
>> should exist.
> 
> By that logic if it doesn't exist and someone sends a patch, I should simply
> ignore a review comment about that patch breaking some non-existent ABI and
> simply take it.

Well, we can always discuss and see if there is a way to not break a 
specific use case, independent of any ABI stability guarantees.

> 
> Well, it certainly works for me.
> 
> Unless you folks come-a-runnin' later screaming it broke some use case of
> yours. 

Heh, not me, but likely some of the CoCo folks regarding this specific 
use case (kexec in a confidential VM).

> And then we're back to what I've been preaching on this thread from the
> very beginning: having a common agreement on what ABI Linux enforces.

Right. Maybe Kiryl knows more about this specific case as he brought up that
these structures are versioned.

-- 
Cheers

David