Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] firmware: arm_ffa: check pkvm initailised when initailise ffa driver

Sudeep Holla
2026-04-20T16:50:15Z

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 02:20:35PM +0000, Sebastian Ene wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 01:46:47PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:32:32 +0100,
> > Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 06:57:59PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Yeoreum,
> > >
> > >
> > > > When pKVM is enabled, the FF-A driver must be initialized after pKVM.
> > > > Otherwise, pKVM cannot negotiate the FF-A version or
> > > > obtain RX/TX buffer information, leading to failures in FF-A calls.
> > >
> > > At the moment this already happens after you move back ffa_init() to
> > > device_initcall().
> >
> > But relying on this sort of ordering is just making things more
> > fragile.
> >
>
> Thanks for letting me know. Since this is not a solid construct we will have
> to change the driver init code to come after pKVM in this case.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > During FF-A driver initialization, check whether pKVM has been initialized.
> > > > If not, defer probing of the FF-A driver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think you need to add this dependency. pKVM is
> > > installed through KVM's module_init() which ends up calling hyp_ffa_init() to
> > > do the proxy initialization. The ARM-FFA driver comes after it (since
> > > pKVM is arch specific code). We don't have to call finalize_pkvm(..) to
> > > be able to handle smc(FF-A) calls in the hyp-proxy.
> >
> > You do. Without the finalisation, SMCs are not trapped by EL2.
> >
> > And even if it did, relying on such hack is just wrong.
> >
>
> That makes it an even stronger argument to move the driver init at a
> later stage. I was relying on this to trap early ff-a when the
> ARM FF-A driver was used.
>

Indeed, if both are at `device_initcall` level, then correct behaviour is
effectively left to link order. That makes the outcome depend on build-time
ordering rather than on an explicit and well-defined dependency, which is
quite fragile and difficult to justify as a reliable fix.

That is precisely the kind of arrangement I am worried about here. Even if it
happens to work today, it is not guaranteed in any robust sense and can easily
break as the code evolves or as unrelated changes affect the link order. In
other words, it may appear functional, but it still lacks a proper dependency
model and remains vulnerable to subtle regressions.

--
Regards,
Sudeep