From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A57DC64E7B for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41103206B6 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:19:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="g8r5HIuJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 41103206B6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783524C0E1; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:21 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@google.com Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rmbeop4QPla7; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61E3C4BD36; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82404BD0A for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:18 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qz+wsZV+L2R1 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com (mail-wr1-f66.google.com [209.85.221.66]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868D74BCB7 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 2020 08:19:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id s8so2557736wrw.10 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=pffIlxOmfR0gBVuszJT4P2RM92yWm19L13Fi6KZxY80=; b=g8r5HIuJm61ScStvkO7mJrI+1nn38z/980CV6TzqHAnq/C/tMpn8R0PxPMpdICIKFz KItikUjWHc9uvevp/742fpTQlJp9GaHVv+u8IxeGH1Eb8zaqaeqs18N/qHN3tAIeTEJc 5bJf9zmO5oXCMIOHPvTM2mV3Zv1N6PSLSx4WNifkn3wEzI5gDFJl0lMu8IyD+oq2rWnW b4H4Dxui2ENwK3LINaVISyu0Uu498hRHfGi7tEXFmE5oEZgj8RCFV/RP+vsy8sirzVOY Eq3m8ra9jGoB+/q/94NpjZJ89tvQ2zIj+da16hIfj48eqsD914RqpXmPGpGwlFLWG2CR ILYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=pffIlxOmfR0gBVuszJT4P2RM92yWm19L13Fi6KZxY80=; b=PBfz8qgsVPL0p9isko04usC17VdGKP1yCDhQEM/SsKPeu5GsqcjjgB0IWKJgrpJXry lh+DXGii893Sp1LiOPdFtKmnFWvg1Oe8qYJx8tj3KMSVrgYzFDfXaA5d9mxEosXn+DVa PqhmdgGTWCNYpPkTTKdAsVZtwJtXUsvFw+DU1nDXSDAg49oWPXM94XC0u1kV8n+HX/Mi tXaSjT1AwQdzMSMDQ7L4VBztbqnyyJVYKgO3asNa89STh5grbUODozYBnsYkEUvZQqW8 WMEpYPjqsosTRIggy0BQVxcJqRqp5oWPAJ1TQdlho4PQmSYI02LaS5ikxmgoJt81vRKX v6kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hiEU9d2qO6ppahqIy79qrbks9QcTOwPYGUEr8UTe5O49Y8a13 OsrofvISCUJKOFM/sarSkx8AkA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNpkgurha25ZUu8Qo29Cw4yJ3wJ4kR79/690cFW6P+G6s4//zbglAbpD8RaDoVhiqxuedQsg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a549:: with SMTP id j9mr3894987wrb.199.1606828756387; Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:19:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com ([2a01:4b00:8523:2d03:7c5f:5ab5:ac1f:89ce]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d17sm3237705wro.62.2020.12.01.05.19.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 01 Dec 2020 05:19:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 13:19:13 +0000 From: David Brazdil To: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/23] kvm: arm64: Add kvm-arm.protected early kernel parameter Message-ID: <20201201131913.u7m2eifvtus74dra@google.com> References: <20201126155421.14901-1-dbrazdil@google.com> <20201126155421.14901-7-dbrazdil@google.com> <20201127163254.zxdrszlveaxhluwn@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201127163254.zxdrszlveaxhluwn@bogus> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , kernel-team@android.com, Jonathan Corbet , Catalin Marinas , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marc Zyngier , Tejun Heo , Dennis Zhou , Christoph Lameter , Will Deacon , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hey Sudeep, > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > index 526d65d8573a..06c89975c29c 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > > @@ -2259,6 +2259,11 @@ > > for all guests. > > Default is 1 (enabled) if in 64-bit or 32-bit PAE mode. > > > > + kvm-arm.protected= > > + [KVM,ARM] Allow spawning protected guests whose state > > + is kept private from the host. Only valid for non-VHE. > > + Default is 0 (disabled). > > + > > Sorry for being pedantic. Can we reword this to say valid for > !CONFIG_ARM64_VHE ? I read this as valid only for non-VHE hardware, it may > be just me, but if you agree please update so that it doesn't give remote > idea that it is not valid on VHE enabled hardware. > > I was trying to run this on the hardware and was trying to understand the > details on how to do that. I see what you're saying, but !CONFIG_ARM64_VHE isn't accurate either. The option makes sense if: 1) all cores booted in EL2 == is_hyp_mode_available() 2) ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1.VH=0 or !CONFIG_ARM64_VHE == !is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() The former feels implied for KVM, the latter could be 'Valid if the kernel is running in EL1'? WDYT? -David _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm