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@xxxxxxxx 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 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
