On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 10:09:31AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 18:55:18 +0100,
> Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/9/2022 10:28 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 07:45:52AM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > >> Do not switch kvm_mode to KVM_MODE_PROTECTED if hypervisor mode is not
> > >> available. This prevents "Protected KVM" cpu capability being reported
> > >> when Linux is booting in EL1 and would not have KVM enabled.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 +++-
> > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > >> index 8fe73ee5fa84..861f4b388879 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > >> @@ -2272,7 +2272,9 @@ static int __init early_kvm_mode_cfg(char *arg)
> > >> return -EINVAL;
> > >> if (strcmp(arg, "protected") == 0) {
> > >> - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
> > >> + if (!is_hyp_mode_available())
> > >> + kvm_mode = KVM_MODE_DEFAULT;
> > >
> > > I think kvm_mode is already KVM_MODE_DEFAULT at this point. You may want
> > > to print a warning instead.
> > >
> >
> > Does it make sense to print warning for kvm-arm.mode=nvhe as well?
>
> In general, specifying a kvm-arm.mode when no hypervisor mode is
> available should be reported as a warning.
As long as this is pr_warn() rather than WARN() then I agree. Otherwise,
kernels with a kvm-arm.mode hardcoded in CONFIG_CMDLINE (e.g. Android's
GKI) will make for noisy guests.
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
