[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251201111201.GAaS14AX18qeHN20xf@fat_crate.local>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:12:01 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
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 Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:18:37AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> Makes sense to me, especially for confidential VMs where we pass such
> kernel-managed data from the old to the new kernel.
It shouldn't matter, right?
I think the question is whether the kernel should agree to the software
contract (/eyeroll) to keep the kernel ABI compatible wrt kexec.
And I don't think we have agreed to that AFAIK.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists