On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:01:22PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> If "kvm-arm.mode=protected" is present on kernel command line, but the
> kernel doesn't actually support KVM because it booted from EL1, the
> ARM64_KVM_PROTECTED_MODE capability is misleadingly reported as present.
> Fix this by adding a check whether we booted from EL2.
>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 8d88433de81d..866667be0651 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@ static void cpu_enable_mte(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> static bool is_kvm_protected_mode(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused)
> {
> - return kvm_get_mode() == KVM_MODE_PROTECTED;
> + return is_hyp_mode_available() && kvm_get_mode() == KVM_MODE_PROTECTED;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_KVM */
Could we not fix this in early_kvm_mode_cfg()?
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
