On 2022-09-09 13:44, Catalin Marinas wrote:
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()?
That's be indeed preferable.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
