On 11/1/24 11:31, Manwaring, Derek wrote: >>From that standpoint I'm still tempted to turn the question around a bit > for the host kernel's perspective. Like if the host kernel should not > (and indeed cannot with TDX controls in place) access guest private > memory, why not remove it from the direct map? Pretend that the machine check warts aren't there. It costs performance and complexity, for an only theoretical gain. This is especially true for a VMM that's not doing a just doing confidential guests. You fracture the direct map to pieces forever (for now).
