On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 09:42:15AM -0700, Roman Kisel wrote:
>
>
> On 3/9/2025 5:31 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 02:02:58PM -0800, Roman Kisel wrote:
> > > The hyperv guest code might run in various Virtual Trust Levels.
> > >
> > > Report the level when the kernel boots in the non-default (0)
> > > one.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Kisel <romank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c | 2 ++
> > > arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c b/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c
> > > index a7db03f5413d..3bc16dbee758 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c
> > > @@ -108,6 +108,8 @@ static int __init hyperv_init(void)
> > > if (ms_hyperv.priv_high & HV_ACCESS_PARTITION_ID)
> > > hv_get_partition_id();
> > > ms_hyperv.vtl = get_vtl();
> > > + if (ms_hyperv.vtl > 0) /* non default VTL */
> >
> > "non-default".
> >
>
> Thanks, will fix that!
>
> > > + pr_info("Linux runs in Hyper-V Virtual Trust Level %d\n", ms_hyperv.vtl);
> > > ms_hyperv_late_init();
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c
> > > index 4e1b1e3b5658..c21bee7e8ff3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_vtl.c
> > > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ static bool __init hv_vtl_msi_ext_dest_id(void)
> > > void __init hv_vtl_init_platform(void)
> > > {
> > > - pr_info("Linux runs in Hyper-V Virtual Trust Level\n");
> > > + pr_info("Linux runs in Hyper-V Virtual Trust Level %d\n", ms_hyperv.vtl);
> >
> > Where isn't there a check for ms_hyperv.vtl > 0 here?
> >
>
> On x86, there is
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_VTL_MODE
> void __init hv_vtl_init_platform(void);
> int __init hv_vtl_early_init(void);
> #else
> static inline void __init hv_vtl_init_platform(void) {}
> static inline int __init hv_vtl_early_init(void) { return 0; }
> #endif
>
> > Please be consistent across different architectures.
> >
>
> In the earlier versions of the patch series, I had that piece
> from the above mirrored in the arm64, and there was advice on
> removing the function as it contained just one statement.
> I'll revisit the approach, thanks for your help!
As long as the output is consistent across different architectures, I'm
good.
Wei.
>
> > > x86_platform.realmode_reserve = x86_init_noop;
> > > x86_platform.realmode_init = x86_init_noop;
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Thank you,
> Roman
>
