Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] virt: tdx-guest: Allocate Quote buffer dynamically
Dave Hansen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.linux-coco,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/20/26 23:49, Peter Fang wrote: ... >> This is all talking about post-quantum-crypto and all that fancy stuff. >> >> Isn't the important part here that the old TDX module ABI had static >> quote sizes and now they're dynamic? Now, the reason it changed is all >> the fancy stuff. >> >> But the ABI changed. Right? > > Ah yes... I should call out that the size of > /sys/kernel/config/tsm/report/$name/outblob will no longer be fixed. > I'll update this. Thanks. No. I mean the TDX Module ABI changed. That's why we need new kernel patches. >> The host may be untrusted, but it's also a critical part of the system. >> Are we sure we want to be completely quiet? >> >> I used to see little dmesg warnings about TCP window shenanigans from >> random systems on the Internet. Maybe that's not how we do things today, >> but if a random dude on the Internet can spew one line to dmesg, is it >> that crazy that a bad VMM be able to spew a warning? > > That makes sense... I actually argued with AI about this but it kept > saying this is kind of like DoSing the guest. But thinking about it > more, tainting the guest is probably the right thing to do... At least > the guest sees a big splat about why attestation is failing. I'll remove > the __GFP_NOWARN. Thanks. This does seem like the kind of high-level TDX policy that we all need to be aligned on and probably document somewhere. The basic question is whether a TDX guest should be quiet or verbose in the face of host malfunction or malfeasance. Kirill and Rick, what do you think?