On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:18:30 +0100, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/09/21 14:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> I think that's only ARM, and even then it is only because of > >> limitations of the hardware which mostly apply only if VHE is not in > >> use. > >> > >> If anything, it's ARM that should support module build in VHE mode > >> (Linux would still need to know whether it will be running at EL1 or > >> EL2, but KVM's functionality is as self-contained as on x86 in the VHE > >> case). > > I don't see this happening anytime soon. At least not before we > > declare the arm64 single kernel image policy to be obsolete. > > --verbose please. :) I am sure you're right, but I don't understand > the link between the two. To start making KVM/arm64 modular, you'd have to build it such as there is no support for the nVHE hypervisor anymore. Which would mean two different configs (one that can only work with VHE, and one for the rest) and contradicts the current single kernel image policy. It is bad enough that we have to support 3 sets of page sizes. Doubling the validation space for the sake of being able to unload KVM seems a dubious prospect. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
