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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 B0A3CCD6E55 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4gVYGj47qSz2yRF; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:34:37 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1780457677; cv=none; b=QofbEea2N/0ObUrWIkisckl23Z4jl+jH2a0eyw35Lty04O6dAuVTMRHNMdCnYRQtVH/kW+tIb3EC9g8EOhjypdDywwqjjo5JyDY96jKtEWKvJqa9djCc6CmKSiKFtpNObPhqjVvIpUZYjuuFo1S3WkuNsoIQn+lp7nfoj2MYmNhetVzIxLc6mjQQ5pX7o5j7fJ7Dn7iik2CuppfK+R/tOnWUQj/9JRf8Uwut8gM6WjHSAR5rbXO9O80xqwjk1BIsWVUj07z7dJVXYA4ceAxoeADvsUW7D6c0ibNc7yEs0jet3SEUWkPSLLaZ5Uapv5NUmXXopTFx+EbU2MG+6llMuA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1780457677; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=tqWImsXeVRKcQn4dWrEUOR+IcKrbiNifyqEYRdi7jNg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=h2dJ8d6g2Qlmr+w7xQwFAQ//2QnOqC7WY52bK66at1NLCIr25rO1ccl63ySla98eKG4Yw1oqKF064ttLcR0WiLW29LgUahBu5CFloxnohMKe95w915VBK39GSrScobQTIrgS46lSmIpVp5gVjCDtRqqH8gs0eKdCKpcE0rXs9MeXq5QEOjsremL97Lfa44f11N9XOS2fy8G3n/dOq2Tdm21MwFnvNlfEPJ1Sm3cAPqhgUlX5I4ob0UlUJ9INOrH1d3R2uGPQlfSmYwjwR3PZoVqeaFyclVsbn2sTjhQ0DzIBhQZTf3+yLEI9o8aEw+A26n1Up+JDuDoy24MFQffh1A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=WtYtN8AS; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=vaibhav@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=WtYtN8AS; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=vaibhav@linux.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4gVYGh0sCpz2xSb for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:34:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 652EmiWO3294112; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:21 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=tqWImsXeVRKcQn4dWrEUOR+IcKrbiN ifyqEYRdi7jNg=; b=WtYtN8ASEBEPkn6FsN53lP3roAJ3tWpikSj9WUeqLVLF3y M7jbEQ6anQpUe/dUMAR9Or69H3PW3Qa1ultcFE2qNFdyCcTRaQdj1TuUtrXiIxDI 4f3qQOTU/2S/kVkRcpjs0Hj0Xp2uCp2LVrXoFcZADKailDPj4R+borZEmDTEmdCR bxt35Km8Sc7WTzV6wuMXcW/u415hsY+/zusXaFXebyQOfcHIBsE2FpJ2aQuzkIS1 hDhPQV7bM868zNV7Kc2jwNiApjuQ6b7hdfZ93WmFdoSnhryk6L9cJvmJxKZQKK3v yFn5P92d+v1YNrwOVQcFHY3oM7v+F6GkZpQqs2JA== Received: from ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5c.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.92]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4efnahrnt8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 03 Jun 2026 03:34:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.7/8.18.1.7) with ESMTP id 6533O731030901; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:20 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.69]) by ppma22.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4egakvxet9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 03 Jun 2026 03:34:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.103]) by smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 6533YIZ319202700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:19 GMT Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EF15805E; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6545E58052; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from vaibhav?linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.39.22.158]) by smtpav04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 03:34:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: by vaibhav@linux.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:03:37 +0530 From: Vaibhav Jain To: Ritesh Harjani , Amit Machhiwal Cc: Amit Machhiwal , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Madhavan Srinivasan , Anushree Mathur , Paolo Bonzini , Nicholas Piggin , Michael Ellerman , "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, lkp@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Validate arch_compat against host compatibility mode In-Reply-To: References: <20260522152744.55251-1-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> <20260522152744.55251-2-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> <20260529141530.fc225a67-e9-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:03:37 +0530 Message-ID: <87se74z4a6.fsf@vajain21.in.ibm.com> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Reinject: loops=2 maxloops=12 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwNjAzMDAyNiBTYWx0ZWRfX1tX0qYxhX1PA z61jkOAogx672D97RkbkT35H97MqtDMjEccbGEYfzy/edaCFo3SHcOTzQbIR7Qb7kGc0g/WACI/ lnfSlQwKm6TpwvMH9LmHLTp40/SI0ry/41/xLbP2yyAVdF+VpVeHIwl48qdwyQioYjEAzNCfaN6 4uu9B7Pxwxt7cq/RgP7mes23iULTqpN4KHTtbtrLOenk1tRC6Yf7tih1rL44WV7MB3/UHiYxcfx lr7xcgV6K7jQSLEXn7OsmMYdwweBBIhdaTvVLAKc4aux2R7UaFCcrzNmqU8oWGwiPIyaHbJQhxM tOm4aVIV5neqvvnJzoNyzoDE65ELo2Zcd+hjiNDoKEok2Ylqzie/ADIhTuAyBcD+oQcB0xkou9N xO20NMfJX7obb+6noYrlsMywDr4iAYDhqrbjHxI7aLTdg4u5ORMZN+0N7zXPvVgHtQ3p8PnhWfI GpYBlNCUX2LJy3icM9A== X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: tlBea0HN3XiMzJQ3-isLDoPoncieOJQe X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=cOzQdFeN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6a1fa0bd cx=c_pps a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:117 a=5BHTudwdYE3Te8bg5FgnPg==:17 a=FelO9ux0wxsA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=RnoormkPH1_aCDwRdu11:22 a=Y2IxJ9c9Rs8Kov3niI8_:22 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=VnNF1IyMAAAA:8 a=3YTRlACzSOsmAlwpqRgA:9 X-Proofpoint-GUID: tmgqI8U8dHULBbb6Z5BkVT8DMOcv5ZpN X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1143,Hydra:6.1.125,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-06-03_01,2026-05-28_03,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2605210000 definitions=main-2606030026 Hi Ritesh, thanks for looking into this patch. My responses to your review comments inline below. Ritesh Harjani (IBM) writes: > Amit Machhiwal writes: > >> So, we would still want to prioritize the whole series >> instead of just this one patch. >> > > Patch-1 could go as a bug fix even in 7.1-rc6 (or maybe with 7.2 > bug fixes). - Maddy? > > So, you may want to add a fixes tag and maybe even cc stable if you are > seeing this issue from older kernels maybe when nestedv2 got introduced? This isnt a 'bug fix' per-se but rather strengthening of compat mode checks so that any non compatible PVR being used by the VMM can be caught early. The hypervisor anyway ultimately prevents non-compatible PVRs from being used by the VMM. So there isnt a bug thats being fixed in this patch. The rest of the patch series builds on top of this patch to advertise the available compatible PVRs to the VMM so that it can further preemptively prevent users from forcibly using a non-compatible PVR. Hence IMHO, this patch can be marked for stable tree and potential candidate for 7.2 merge window. But dont see applicability of a 'fixes' tag to this patch > However the new UAPI discussion might still require more discussion with > the community and I don't think it is ready for 7.2 yet ;) Somewhat agree with the above > > -ritesh > -- Cheers ~ Vaibhav