From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0459C43334 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 17:10:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231890AbiFXRKD (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:10:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32954 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231833AbiFXRKB (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2022 13:10:01 -0400 Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF42951E7E; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:10:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656090600; x=1687626600; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bgbQFlCVdpCMNcHSrhnw0vtteZ74+vzwjmr94U9FKJs=; b=eqKfB7CQnG4RNgSwzJIoVcZwNm2i1chrqdILFZOemMrsLUNW9Z4xODT9 flbWCJR+vsvBDSeXSeKCMf6Lw14iT203WAf+mJdTjy1ghADJqXy2u7OfX dSU3HOYEBIEFznRzrClIsUByMdKFasv2FpDrlDdMsqOkEalKGlzoiEG78 ZYM9iD+IlDcld/oD35Waq8cJT0yN3FdUe/TrcJLe/n67loM0vf9KLY7i1 VCJqBZ8w/LQlpJrLwcXQZZMufBumG0swcYQFrIJNBLe8/5lEsDtYC7T1Q YcBMWKjopM1OmpXcwXuN0kFXbpEs3JNyjO72xMdk2h/7sehHj3CP8FyqM w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10388"; a="261468653" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,218,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="261468653" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2022 10:10:00 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,218,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="731398263" Received: from mdedeogl-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.126.186]) ([10.209.126.186]) by fmsmga001-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Jun 2022 10:09:59 -0700 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:09:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1 Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 00/14] mm, x86/cc: Implement support for unaccepted memory Content-Language: en-US To: Marc Orr Cc: Peter Gonda , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Borislav Petkov , Andy Lutomirski , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Joerg Roedel , Ard Biesheuvel , Andi Kleen , Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan , David Rientjes , Vlastimil Babka , Tom Lendacky , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Paolo Bonzini , Ingo Molnar , Varad Gautam , Dario Faggioli , Mike Rapoport , David Hildenbrand , Marcelo , tim.gardner@canonical.com, Khalid ElMously , philip.cox@canonical.com, the arch/x86 maintainers , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, LKML References: <20220614120231.48165-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <5af19000-4482-7eb9-f158-0a461891f087@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/24/22 10:06, Marc Orr wrote: > I think Peter's point is a little more nuanced than that. Once lazy > accept goes into the guest firmware -- without the feature negotiation > that Peter is suggesting -- cloud providers now have a bookkeeping > problem. Which images have kernels that can boot from a guest firmware > that doesn't pre-validate all the guest memory? Hold on a sec though... Is this a matter of can boot from a guest firmware that doesn't pre-validate all the guest memory? or can boot from a guest firmware that doesn't pre-validate all the guest memory ... with access to all of that guest's RAM? In other words, are we talking about "fails to boot" or "can't see all the RAM"?