Re: [PATCH] x86/virt/tdx: Make TDX and kexec mutually exclusive at runtime

[Dave Hansen]

On 4/16/25 16:02, Kai Huang wrote:
> Full support for kexec on a TDX host would require complex work.
> The cache flushing required would need to happen while stopping
> remote CPUs, which would require changes to a fragile area of the
> kernel.

Doesn't kexec already stop remote CPUs? Doesn't this boil down to a
WBINVD? How is that complex?

> It would also require resetting TDX private pages, which is non-
> trivial since the core kernel does not track them.

Why? The next kernel will just use KeyID-0 which will blast the old
pages away with no side effects... right?

> Lastly, it would have to rely on a yet-to-be documented behavior
> around the TME key (KeyID 0).

I'll happily wait for the documentation if you insist on it (I don't).