Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: arm64: support optional calls of FF-A v1.2

[Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>]

Hi Ben,

>
> On 10/28/25 21:06, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> >>> To use TPM drvier which uses CRB over FF-A with FFA_DIRECT_REQ2,
> >>> support the FF-A v1.2's optinal calls by querying whether
> >>> SPMC supports those.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@arm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> >>> index 0ae87ff61758..9ded1c6369b9 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> >>> @@ -646,6 +646,22 @@ static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res,
> >>>  		ffa_to_smccc_res(res, ret);
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>> +static bool ffa_1_2_optional_calls_supported(u64 func_id)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs res;
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (!smp_load_acquire(&has_version_negotiated) ||
> >>> +		(FFA_MINOR_VERSION(FFA_VERSION_1_2) < 2))
> >>> +		return false;
> >>> +
> >>> +	arm_smccc_1_2_smc(&(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs) {
> >>> +		.a0 = FFA_FEATURES,
> >>> +		.a1 = func_id,
> >>> +	}, &res);
> >>> +
> >>> +	return res.a0 == FFA_SUCCESS;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>  /*
> >>>   * Is a given FFA function supported, either by forwarding on directly
> >>>   * or by handling at EL2?
> >>> @@ -678,12 +694,13 @@ static bool ffa_call_supported(u64 func_id)
> >>>  	case FFA_NOTIFICATION_SET:
> >>>  	case FFA_NOTIFICATION_GET:
> >>>  	case FFA_NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET:
> >>> +		return false;
> >>>  	/* Optional interfaces added in FF-A 1.2 */
> >>>  	case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2:		/* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> >>>  	case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_RESP2:		/* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> >>>  	case FFA_CONSOLE_LOG:			/* Optional per 13.1: not in Table 13.1 */
> >>
> >> Looking at table 13.54 in the FF-A 1.2 spec FFA_CONSOLE_LOG is only supported in secure FF-A
> >> instances and not from the normal world.
> >
> > Thanks. in that case, we can return false for FFA_CONSOLE_LOG
> > unconditionally.
> >
> >>
> >>>  	case FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET_REGS:	/* Optional for virtual instances per 13.1 */
> >>> -		return false;
> >>> +		return ffa_1_2_optional_calls_supported(func_id);
> >>>  	}
> >>
> >> I don't think that an smc call here is the right thing to do. This changes this from a light
> >> weight deny list to an extra smc call for each ffa_msg_send_direct_req2 from the driver.
> >>
> >> Instead, I would expect this patch just to remove FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 from the deny list
> >> and rely on the TPM driver to use FFA_FEATURES to check whether it's supported.
> >>
> >> So, just this change:
> >>
> >> @@ -679,7 +679,6 @@ static bool ffa_call_supported(u64 func_id)
> >>         case FFA_NOTIFICATION_GET:
> >>         case FFA_NOTIFICATION_INFO_GET:
> >>         /* Optional interfaces added in FF-A 1.2 */
> >> -       case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2:          /* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> >>         case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_RESP2:         /* Optional per 7.5.1 */
> >>         case FFA_CONSOLE_LOG:                   /* Optional per 13.1: not in Table 13.1 */
> >>         case FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET_REGS:       /* Optional for virtual instances per 13.1 */
> >>
> >> Am I missing something?
> >
> > Nope. I think you don't think you miss anything and
> > I also think about it.
> >
> > But, I'm not sure about "support" means in the pkvm about FF-A.
> > Anyway unless the SPMC doesn't support the specific FF-A ABI,
> > I don't know that's meaningful to return "TRUE" in here.
> > IOW, suppose pkvm returns supports of  FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2
> > but user receive when it calls FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 with NOT SUPPORTED.
>
> As I understand it, the ffa_call_supported() is used in two places:
> 1. To return NOT SUPPORTED to an FFA_FEATURE call for ffa calls that are
> on the deny list.
> 2. To block ffa calls if they are on the deny list.
>
> For both your patch and just removing FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 from the
> denylist I think the behaviour is the same.
>
> If FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 is not supported at the spmc then:
> a) an FFA_FEATURE call will return not supported
> b) an FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ2 will return not supported
>

Right! I've missed the FFA_FEATURE handles via default_host_smc_handler().
As you said, it just a deny list.

Thanks. I'll change it.


--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun