On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 11:51 -0700, Ackerley Tng wrote: > "Edgecombe, Rick P" <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, 2026-08-11 at 10:35 -0700, Ackerley Tng wrote: > > > > > Would like to see what Sean thinks of this. Either way, is it okay to > > > > > follow up after conversions lands? > > > > Let's see what Sean thinks of this :) > > > > I raised this because the issue was encountered by one TDX's stress > > > > selftest. > > > > > > Which stress selftest is this? I can try running this on my side too. > > > > We have some selftests that are built on the basic TDX selftests. One just > > hammers the MMU stuff with a bunch of zaps and also weird stuff from the > > guest. > > It was eventually too much work to try to keep the internal enhancements > > rebased > > Would like all the comments we can get on TDX selftests v14 [1]!
I think we had a few. Let me try to round up some more folks. > > > nicely so we actually just run an old branch's TDX selftests against newer > > kernels. So the branch is a bit of a pile, and not really suitable for > > sharing. > > We plan to clean it and upstream it when the path clears. So it would really > > help to get those basic ones upstream. We remain happy to help, so please > > let us > > know. > > I guess at this point I'm hoping y'all and Sean are okay that this > conversions series merges, and we let this stress test failure be > handled later. I'll be around to fix things :) > > I'd say the line of sight to fixing this would be when the KVM MMU only > gets PFNs (and no pages at all) from guest_memfd. Hmm, I think we shouldn't upstream a uABI that we don't have line of sight to making robust. So it would be good to settle this thread at least. I'd point to Yan for what side of that line this is on, as she has been following this stuff much more to me.
