Re: [PATCH v17 06/20] KVM: arm64: CCA: Add a new mode for supporting Realm guests

[Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>]

On 10/09/2026 06:53, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
> 
> On 9/9/26 2:22 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add an explicit mode to support Arm CCA guests.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h               | 1 +
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c                            | 5 +++++
>>   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/ 
>> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> index 68647ff4bdd24..1afe3df3b923e 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
>> @@ -3256,6 +3256,9 @@ Kernel parameters
>>               nested: VHE-based mode with support for nested
>>                   virtualization. Requires at least ARMv8.4
>>                   hardware (with FEAT_NV2).
>> +            rmm: Support for running confidential guests in Realm
>> +                 world using RMM, as defined by Arm Confidential
>> +                 Compute Architecture (CCA)
>>
> 
> I'm not sure, but 'realm' would be more appropriate name. rmm (Real 
> Management Monitor) is
> the term limited to the firmware to me. Besides, we have been using 
> 'realm' broadly in this
> series like kvm_vm_is_realm(), kvm_realm_state() and so on.

May be. But we use the "mode" of the hypervisor in question here, 
mostly. e.g., nvhe, vhe, protected etc. So, I went with RMM (in favor
of CCA). Does that make sense ? Also, we rely on firmware/arm_rmm for
the support. So, it kind of make sense to keep it "rmm" ?

Cheers
Suzuki