linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/sev: Add support to unaccept memory after hot-remove

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: <b7cbc2f4-6fef-44c2-a0f4-2d6895c0fd74@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:39:55 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Pratik R. Sampat" <prsampat@....com>, Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
 bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...nel.org, osalvador@...e.de,
 thomas.lendacky@....com, michael.roth@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/sev: Add support to unaccept memory after
 hot-remove

On 1/29/26 09:32, Pratik R. Sampat wrote:
> In that case a fall through for TDX (with a comment explaining why) and
> panic for rest may be the way to go?

No. panic() is an absolute last resort. It's almost never the way to go.

What else can we do to ensure we never reach this code if the platform
doesn't support memory un-acceptance?