linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/16] x86/virt/tdx: Allocate page bitmap for Dynamic PAMT

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: <aWQ/KSgH49t0MIZO@yilunxu-OptiPlex-7050>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 08:24:09 +0800
From: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
	"Li, Xiaoyao" <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
	"Wu, Binbin" <binbin.wu@...el.com>,
	"kas@...nel.org" <kas@...nel.org>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
	"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/16] x86/virt/tdx: Allocate page bitmap for Dynamic
 PAMT

On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 04:05:30PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-01-09 at 10:18 +0800, Xu Yilun wrote:
> > On the other hand, the cost of a newly designed firmware interface
> > for an already online functionality is not low, especially when you
> > want backward compatibility to old TDX Module. The worst case is we
> > keep both sets of the code...
> 
> I think TDX module changes are something to consider long term. We
> already discussed not overhauling the metadata reading again ahead of
> the current work, so I don't think there is anything else to discuss
> here.

I agree. We don't have to introduce new interfaces for optional feature
checking. That's another topic.