Hi Reiji, On Wed, 09 Feb 2022 05:32:36 +0000, Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 6:41 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In [1], I suggested another approach that didn't require extra state, > > and moved the existing checks under the kvm lock. What was wrong with > > that approach? > > With that approach, even for a vcpu that has a broken set of features, > which leads kvm_reset_vcpu() to fail for the vcpu, the vcpu->arch.features > are checked by other vCPUs' vcpu_allowed_register_width() until the > vcpu->arch.target is set to -1. > Due to this, I would think some or possibly all vCPUs' kvm_reset_vcpu() > may or may not fail (e.g. if userspace tries to configure vCPU#0 with > 32bit EL1, and vCPU#1 and #2 with 64 bit EL1, KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT > for either vCPU#0, or both vCPU#1 and #2 should fail. But, with that > approach, it doesn't always work that way. Instead, KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT > for all vCPUs could fail or KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT for vCPU#0 and #1 could > fail while the one for CPU#2 works). > Also, even after the first KVM_RUN for vCPUs are already done, > (the first) KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT for another vCPU could cause the > kvm_reset_vcpu() for those vCPUs to fail. > > I would think those behaviors are odd, and I wanted to avoid them. OK, fair enough. But then you need to remove most of the uses of KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT so that it is only used as a userspace interface and maybe not carried as part of the vcpu feature flag anymore. Also, we really should turn all these various bits in the kvm struct into a set of flags. I have a patch posted there[1] for this, feel free to pick it up. Thanks, M. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211004174849.2831548-2-maz@xxxxxxxxxx -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
