Re: [PATCH v8 15/21] x86/virt/tdx: Refresh TDX module version after update

Dave Hansen
2026-04-30T19:14:33Z

On 4/27/26 08:28, Chao Gao wrote:
> The kernel exposes the TDX module version through sysfs so userspace can
> check update compatibility. That information needs to remain accurate
> across runtime updates.
>
> A runtime update may change the module's update_version, so refresh the
> cached version after a successful update and emit a log message to show
> the version change.
>
> Drop __ro_after_init from tdx_sysinfo because it is now updated at runtime.
>
> Perform the refresh outside of stop_machine() since printk() within
> stop_machine() would add significant latency.
>
> Do not refresh the rest of tdx_sysinfo. Refreshing them at runtime could
> disrupt running software that relies on the previously reported values.

This needs more explanation. I think the reasoning is quite nuanced.

tdx_sysinfo is just a cache of what the TDX module is and can do. If
that changes, it means the TDX module changed. So you somehow need to
argue why it's OK to hide those changes from the tdx_sysinfo users.

Why would they be confused by tdx_sysinfo changes but not by the TDX
module *itself* changing?

> Note that major and minor versions are not refreshed because runtime updates
> are supported only between releases with identical major and minor versions.

I'd rather have this in code than a changelog comment.

If they can't change then warn if they do.

> diff --git a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/seamldr.c b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/seamldr.c
> index 98a8d9d3ae25..c81b26c4bac1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/seamldr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/virt/vmx/tdx/seamldr.c
> @@ -306,6 +306,8 @@ DEFINE_FREE(free_seamldr_params, struct seamldr_params *,
> */
> int seamldr_install_module(const u8 *data, u32 size)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> struct seamldr_params *params __free(free_seamldr_params) =
> init_seamldr_params(data, size);
> if (IS_ERR(params))
> @@ -314,6 +316,10 @@ int seamldr_install_module(const u8 *data, u32 size)
> /* Ensure a stable set of online CPUs for the update process. */
> guard(cpus_read_lock)();
> set_target_state(MODULE_UPDATE_START + 1);
> - return stop_machine_cpuslocked(do_seamldr_install_module, params, cpu_online_mask);
> + ret = stop_machine_cpuslocked(do_seamldr_install_module, params, cpu_online_mask);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return tdx_module_refresh_version();
> }

This is one reason I rather dislike guard().

Does tdx_module_refresh_version() need to be guarded by 'cpus_read_lock'?

> +int tdx_module_refresh_version(void)
> +{
> + struct tdx_sys_info_version *old, new;

Two variable definitions, please. IMNHO pointers and plain variables are
different types. Even if you can, they should not be defined together.

> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Shouldn't fail as the update has succeeded. */
> + ret = get_tdx_sys_info_version(&new);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> +
> + old = &tdx_sysinfo.version;
> + pr_info("version " TDX_VERSION_FMT " -> " TDX_VERSION_FMT "\n",
> + old->major_version, old->minor_version, old->update_version,
> + new.major_version, new.minor_version, new.update_version);

Having 'new' and 'old' be different types is really wonky. What's wrong
with:

struct tdx_sys_info_version old = tdx_sysinfo.version;

?

> + /* Major/minor versions should not change across updates. */
> + tdx_sysinfo.version.update_version = new.update_version;

^ very odd tab

Also, how much of this do you *NEED*? You don't need to print the old
version. You don't really need to _print_ the new version either.

Isn't this arguably all fluff?

If the fluff went away would we even be talking about the funky pointer
versus plain type gunk?

Second, this is all open-coded and completely discrete from the code
that originally sets 'tdx_sysinfo.version'. Can it be unified?