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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 492C9CA5FFC for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 06:01:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=tNiAIZ534OAkHW760LdNnX/2crMlNmddevik7+U7zcg=; b=kGZXYRGL2Vie6NA82aokY7ZGas WWKbqYdaFbHf3lfTW2vp5vpHxg0ZmjewNWKJ0bRr/939mexUGpUrY/OOys645DVRJ4104FwUwRz6/ DGI9LmSQfe4TqiSk+j3R5KlJ7DDyiEuU8EiLl+bNe9DNmRsv+oy/dKfvBlbXbu/orU1PvdVN9nyej 7qy46Y2Mfw7qWfqSEjYsoPy8XajyFr/KWhBifLnR+Ge3xd0ZVeI1vzSdDCH2z3xlJEqc8Hipe/hRn IALJ/4flpM/K09ZjX+YeU0cNGFD5BWP9IyRxpKp7u2NnX8xSc6a7rnID+27upDlX36UrPjPEbXGd4 aR/B/V8Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xDyFG-000000005xW-3qTg; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 06:01:46 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1xDyFE-000000005wY-2mnW for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 06:01:45 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF9C168F; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 23:01:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.10.233] (unknown [10.57.10.233]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B4BA3F763; Mon, 5 Oct 2026 23:01:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1791266503; bh=K5ZbFg0ad6QXuzcRw9vXkYN2H3KpO+AxVP0d6o2ZYfo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=KNxGHj4Y75GUVXBSpnYDZyrtIb1rQQbHv6uTZZCgA/BESWq1aQW6vGKVGXtGY5vTi PuyO5ciX1UcbAZyJj47gAMCVKSWouSxeeczjXlIHisWimYRAu/6rME70AwIDc+9flR WtQFpbIOAe90/rA6C1Fvdp3clq1F+u9TDpsPZi20= Message-ID: <7b6ed626-eca4-41f2-ae56-0af59a931b29@arm.com> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2026 08:01:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 23/23] KVM: arm64: CCA: Control user register access for Realms Content-Language: en-GB To: Gavin Shan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev Cc: maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, steven.price@arm.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, tabba@google.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, gankulkarni@os.amperecomputing.com, sdonthineni@nvidia.com, alpergun@google.com, fj0570is@fujitsu.com, WeiLin.Chang@arm.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, enju.kohei@fujitsu.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, jonathan.cameron@oss.qualcomm.com, Jean-Philippe Brucker References: <20261005090754.2140522-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20261005090754.2140522-24-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <52e3e45a-751e-40b2-8dd3-3db589ddebee@redhat.com> From: Suzuki K Poulose In-Reply-To: <52e3e45a-751e-40b2-8dd3-3db589ddebee@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20261005_230144_782455_FD8710F2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.23 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 06/10/2026 06:47, Gavin Shan wrote: > On 10/5/26 7:07 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker >> >> The RMM restricts the access to the register states that the host can >> read/modify for a given Realm. >> >> e.g., At VCPU creation, can modify GPRS (x0-x30) and PC. >>        While servicing SMCCC calls via RSI_HOST_CALL or servicing PSCI >>        requests. >>        MMIO emulation in the unprotected space. >> >> Additionally we use the sysreg configuration to advertise/configure the >> following Realm parameters, which are required before the Realm >> Descriptor >> is created: >>   - SVE Vector Length >>   - Number of HW Breakpoints/Watchpoints >>   - PMU Counters. >> >> Thus KVM also additionally allows access to ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 and >> SVE_VLS for >> the configuration of Realm creation parameters. We don't support PMUs for >> the Realm VMs yet, so PMCR is not exposed. >> >> The RMM makes similar restrictions for reading of the guest's registers >> (this is *confidential* compute after all), however we don't impose the >> restriction here. This allows the VMM to read (stale) values from the >> registers which might be useful to read back the initial values even if >> the RMM doesn't provide the latest version. For migration of a realm VM, >> a new interface will be needed so that the VMM can receive an >> (encrypted) blob of the VM's state. >> >> Reflect the above in KVM_GET_REG_LIST, KVM_SET_ONE_REG calls. >>   static int core_reg_size_from_offset(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> u64 off) >>   { >>       int size; >> @@ -553,6 +572,9 @@ static int copy_core_reg_indices(const struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >>           u64 reg = KVM_REG_ARM64 | KVM_REG_ARM_CORE | i; >>           int size = core_reg_size_from_offset(vcpu, i); >> +        if (vcpu_is_rec(vcpu) && !kvm_realm_validate_core_reg(i)) >> +            continue; >> + >>           if (size < 0) >>               continue; >> @@ -598,6 +620,9 @@ static unsigned long num_sve_regs(const struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>       if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu)) >>           return 0; >> +    if (kvm_vm_is_realm(vcpu->kvm)) >> +        return 1; /* KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_VLS */ >> + >>       if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_sve_finalized(vcpu)) >>           return 1; /* KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE_VLS */ >> > > Aren't above two checks conflicting to each other? Do they? We allow SVE_VLS only for the Realms and we allow that before the vCPUs are finalized. For normal VMs, depending on whether the vcpus are finalized, we either send 1 or the full list. > >> @@ -625,6 +650,10 @@ static int copy_sve_reg_indices(const struct >> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >>           return -EFAULT; >>       ++num_regs; >> +    /* For Realms only support SVE_VLS */ >> +    if (kvm_vm_is_realm(vcpu->kvm)) >> +        return num_regs; >> + >>       if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_sve_finalized(vcpu)) >>           return num_regs; > > Same question here. As above. Suzuki