Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> writes:
> When trapping forbidden attempts by a guest to use SVE, we want the
> guest to see a trap consistent with SVE not being implemented.
>
> This patch injects an undefined instruction exception into the
> guest in response to such an exception.
I do wonder if this should be merged with the previous trap enabling
patch though?
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> index 17d8a16..e3e42d0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,13 @@ static int kvm_handle_unknown_ec(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static int handle_sve(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> +{
> + /* Until SVE is supported for guests: */
> + kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = {
> [0 ... ESR_ELx_EC_MAX] = kvm_handle_unknown_ec,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_WFx] = kvm_handle_wfx,
> @@ -160,6 +167,7 @@ static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = {
> [ESR_ELx_EC_HVC64] = handle_hvc,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_SMC64] = handle_smc,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64] = kvm_handle_sys_reg,
> + [ESR_ELx_EC_SVE] = handle_sve,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_LOW] = kvm_handle_guest_abort,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_LOW] = kvm_handle_guest_abort,
> [ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW]= kvm_handle_guest_debug,
--
Alex Bennée
