linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Expose TDX Module version

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: <aa3f026b-ad69-4070-8433-8950e5250edb@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 14:26:03 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: dan.j.williams@...el.com, Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
Cc: Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 vishal.l.verma@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com, yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com,
 vannapurve@...gle.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Expose TDX Module version

On 1/7/26 13:34, dan.j.williams@...el.com wrote:
> For sake of argument, I assume you have no fundamental objection to
> module version information in sysfs in general? I.e. is the question
> more on the where and how for TDX sysfs?

For reference, and so the next poster can write an excellent and focused
changelog wherever this goes, the context I was yearning for in the
changelog was:

1. AMD has a PCI device for the PSP for SEV which provides an existing
   place to hang their equivalent metadata. TDX has no PCI device.
2. ARM CCA will likely have a faux device (although it isn't obvious if
   they have a need to export version information there)
3. The TDX faux device will drive TDX module updates. The version number
   is obviously deeply important to entities doing updates.

So, no, I don't have a fundamental objection to having TDX module
version information in sysfs. But, in the context of this series, I
don't see any incremental value for doing it in addition to dmesg _now_.
If the module updater userspace needs it, then I'd rather defer the
sysfs export (and faux device creation) until the time that there's an
actual concrete user.