Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:58:30 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCHv6 00/16] x86/tdx: Add kexec support | From | Nikolay Borisov <> |
| |
On 31.01.24 г. 14:47 ч., Baoquan He wrote: > On 01/31/24 at 09:31am, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 30.01.24 г. 15:43 ч., Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 1/24/24 13:55, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>>> The patchset adds bits and pieces to get kexec (and crashkernel) work on >>>> TDX guest. >>>> >>>> The last patch implements CPU offlining according to the approved ACPI >>>> spec change poposal[1]. It unlocks kexec with all CPUs visible in >>>> the target >>>> kernel. It requires BIOS-side enabling. If it missing we fallback to >>>> booting >>>> 2nd kernel with single CPU. >>>> >>>> Please review. I would be glad for any feedback. >>> >>> Hi Kirill, >>> >>> I have a very basic question: is there a reason why this series does not >>> revert commit cb8eb06d50fc, "x86/virt/tdx: Disable TDX host support when >>> kexec is enabled"? >> >> While on the topic, Paolo do you think it's better to have a runtime >> disable of kexec rather than at compile time: >> >> [RFC PATCH] x86/virt/tdx: Disable KEXEC in the presence of TDX >> >> 20240118160118.1899299-1-nik.borisov@suse.com > > Runtime disabling kexec looks better than at cmpile time, esp for > distros. While from above patch, making using of kexec_load_disabled to > achive the runtime disabling may not be so good. Because we have a front > door to enable it through: > > /proc/sys/kernel/kexec_load_disabled
AFAIU it can't be enabled via this sysctl because the handler for it expects only 1 to be written to it:
2 .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
1 .extra1 = SYSCTL_ONE,
994 .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
> > If there's a flag or status to check if TDX host is enabled, and does > the checking in kexec_load_permitted(), that could be better. Anyway, I > saw Huang, Kai has posted the tdx host support patchset. > >> >> I'm trying to get traction for this patch. >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Paolo >>> >>> >> >
| |