Re: [PATCH 06/30] KVM: arm64: Remove pointless is_protected_kvm_enabled() checks from hyp

Will Deacon
2026-01-09T14:23:51Z

On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 02:40:47PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 05 Jan 2026 at 15:49:14 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> > When pKVM is not enabled, the host shouldn't issue pKVM-specific
> > hypercalls and so there's no point checking for this in the EL2
> > hypercall handling code.
> >
> > Remove the redundant is_protected_kvm_enabled() checks.
>
> That made me wonder if we should further divide the HVC space to have a
> 'pKVM only' range in addition to the privileged/unprivileged split, so
> we could WARN in the core HVC handler in the pretty unlikely event that
> we take a pKVM-only call in {n,h}VHE.

Good idea. I can certainly look at that as a follow-up to this series
but I'd prefer not to grow it beyond its current scope at the moment as
it's already bigger than I would really like.

> But yes there is no point in littering the code with is_protected_kvm_enabled()
> checks all over, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>

Thanks,

Will