On Fri, 2025-06-13 at 15:19 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Arg, I just realized a one-way opt-in will have a theoretical gap. If the > > guest > > kexec's, the new kernel will need to match the opt-in. > > All the more reason to make this a property of the VM that is passed via > "struct td_params". I.e. put the onus on the owner of the VM to ensure their > kernel(s) have been updated accordingly. Hmm, it gives me pause. At minimum it should have an enumeration to the guest. > > I understand that this could be painful, but honestly _all_ of TDX and SNP is > painful for the guest. E.g. I don't think it's any worse than the security > issues with TDX (and SNP) guests using kvmclock (which I'd love some reviews > on, > btw). > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250227021855.3257188-35-seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx Oh, nice. I hadn't seen this. Agree that a comprehensive guest setup is quite manual. But here we are playing with guest ABI. In practice, yes it's similar to passing yet another arg to get a good TD. We can start with a prototype the host side arg and see how it turns out. I realized we need to verify edk2 as well. Thanks Sean.
