On Fri, 2024-03-01 at 20:21 +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > > The Hyper-V case can actually be a third path when a paravisor > is being used. In that case, for both TDX and SEV-SNP, the > hypervisor callbacks in __set_memory_enc_pgtable() go > to Hyper-V specific functions that talk to the paravisor. Those > callbacks never panic. After a failure, either at the paravisor > level or in the paravisor talking to the hypervisor/VMM, the > decrypted/encrypted state of the memory isn't known. So > leaking the memory is still the right thing to do, and your > patch set is good. But in the Hyper-V with paravisor case, > the leaking is applicable more broadly than just TDX. > > The text in the commit message isn't something that I'll > go to the mat over. But I wanted to offer the slightly broader > perspective. Oh, interesting. I think I missed it because it only has a special enc_status_change_finish(). But yea. It does sound like the text you suggested is more accurate. I'll update it.
