Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Enforce HCR_EL2.E2H being RES0 when VHE is disabled, so that we can > actually rely on that bit never being flipped behind our back. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > index 0c9387d2f5070..ed3add7d32f66 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c > @@ -1034,6 +1034,8 @@ int kvm_init_nv_sysregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > res0 |= (HCR_TEA | HCR_TERR); > if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, LO, IMP)) > res0 |= HCR_TLOR; > + if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, VH, IMP)) > + res0 |= HCR_E2H; > if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1, E2H0, IMP)) > res1 |= HCR_E2H; > Does it make sense to check for E2H0 if MMFR1_EL1.VH == 0 ? Should the above check be if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, VH, IMP)) res0 |= HCR_E2H; else if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1, E2H0, IMP)) res1 |= HCR_E2H; > set_sysreg_masks(kvm, HCR_EL2, res0, res1); > -- > 2.39.2
