On Fri, Aug 29, 2025, Rick P Edgecombe wrote: > On Fri, 2025-08-29 at 13:19 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > I'm happy to include more context in the changelog, but I really don't want > > anyone to walk away from this thinking that pinning pages in random KVM code > > is at all encouraged. > > Sorry for going on a tangent. Defensive programming inside the kernel is a > little more settled. But for defensive programming against the TDX module, there > are various schools of thought internally. Currently we rely on some > undocumented behavior of the TDX module (as in not in the spec) for correctness. Examples? > But I don't think we do for security. > > Speaking for Yan here, I think she was a little more worried about this scenario > then me, so I read this verbiage and thought to try to close it out.
