From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa10.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com (esa10.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com [139.138.36.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3FDD44BCB8; Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.36.225 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788779584; cv=none; b=X0heOZQ21srNtjj9oyLr73YDvsXlesfj2o7WbVrYCMiwt8KHasCHkxFvsxsLpdksDJeA1+FikjzP1ZlhyI9cfjqsgw2zCUzZaXevsyTGkrfuk9NVR5eb79JqpWEDqG3GPs4aCNQz49iQziXf2jvQTfOtL5zql3Dw+0HKDMBQfW4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788779584; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EpBWm7l/SMvIb6B8I2VN3Q1p/tlU23eIdQVaFpkHoJY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=M8tQitWKD7OHfVLZanluEIhp5aC12oA9AXph2GjVxm5QKuijjU5SNmBl47aFRP6C/2wyOaAy7Ncjk+wbCzf2XpV7u2InUmiUs/8n3MQitcmGnbwjBvre+anNhZG9RF/6u0IRz61RV7oEM4H7bqx8azo0k+W6Gv9IXNUDNpt9ihg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b=d+dCKFCI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=139.138.36.225 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.b="d+dCKFCI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=fujitsu.com; i=@fujitsu.com; q=dns/txt; s=fj2; t=1788779582; x=1820315582; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=EpBWm7l/SMvIb6B8I2VN3Q1p/tlU23eIdQVaFpkHoJY=; b=d+dCKFCIya3BdKpYQvYIya+mZSPrdpZgPAKwBfXMmsbZDkm23V9C5ec+ Obr4iz8fXGzKbmlKDfn5YGtEYtKUZxJlSI/qUMtJ4QRiXcCTZco+ZF6+u M6kz1zXh1EqVudWfKIEngRP9S4zR9bGC4TbTojJpUzryk4cOZurXvJ4r/ QpHuNhjJQovuS9TaK6IgRgLDai0Neyp/WnKq3W59FUH5EgI6SBoX79k0/ pf8iEC+xxory9UU7OhqlA0vcE5VtrkPxrb2I5TZZ69LVgw6S28jdc77mO 7D4fPNsYgbBo3KoVrtUoL9bhm+BBdcvARw03apyRdm/00Y+5Tobd12Bco A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 61tSc0qGSO+1Ay8o4lFrNw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: p44XsvEgQ0yefrzJJQGViw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11898"; a="240390761" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.25,267,1779116400"; d="scan'208";a="240390761" Received: from gmgwuk01.global.fujitsu.com ([172.187.114.235]) by esa10.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2026 20:12:53 +0900 Received: from az2uksmgm3.o.css.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.151.22.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by gmgwuk01.global.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6139820711; Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from az2nlsmom2.o.css.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.150.26.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by az2uksmgm3.o.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6607DC0043D; Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from FCCLS0092175.localdomain (unknown [10.8.144.219]) by az2nlsmom2.o.css.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC6E01800102; Mon, 7 Sep 2026 11:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 20:12:36 +0900 From: Kohei Enju To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Steven Price , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , James Morse , Oliver Upton , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Alexandru Elisei , Christoffer Dall , Fuad Tabba , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Gavin Shan , Shanker Donthineni , Alper Gun , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Emi Kisanuki , Vishal Annapurve , WeiLin.Chang@arm.com, Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 22/45] KVM: arm64: CCA: Handle RMI_EXIT_RIPAS_CHANGE Message-ID: References: <20260803134403.80630-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20260803134403.80630-23-steven.price@arm.com> <86fqzl4biu.wl-maz@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-coco@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86fqzl4biu.wl-maz@kernel.org> Hi Marc, On 09/07 11:10, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Mon, 07 Sep 2026 06:05:29 +0100, > Kohei Enju wrote: > > [...] > > > Although the root cause is an RMM bug, should we also guard RIPAS_SET > > against this no-progress case? > > No. We really should *prevent* the kernel from using a known broken > RMM. I understand. > Which brings me to one of my long standing request: how to we > enforce the minimum version of RMM that KVM is willing to work with? > > We absolutely need to have a hard deprecation mechanism in place > before day-1. Agreed. Such a mechanism is clearly necessary. Is there any ongoing work to address this that you are aware of? This seems like a fairly broad topic that may require a separate discussion. Thanks, Kohei > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.