Re: [PATCH v4 01/28] KVM: arm64: Add a new function to donate memory with prot

Mostafa Saleh
2025-09-16T11:57:04Z

On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 02:46:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 09:51:29PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > Soon, IOMMU drivers running in the hypervisor might interact with
> > non-coherent devices, so it needs a mechanism to map memory as
> > non cacheable.
> > Add ___pkvm_host_donate_hyp() which accepts a new argument for prot,
> > so the driver can add KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_NORMAL_NC.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/mem_protect.h | 1 +
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/mem_protect.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/mem_protect.h
> > index 5f9d56754e39..52d7ee91e18c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/mem_protect.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/mem_protect.h
> > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ int __pkvm_prot_finalize(void);
> > int __pkvm_host_share_hyp(u64 pfn);
> > int __pkvm_host_unshare_hyp(u64 pfn);
> > int __pkvm_host_donate_hyp(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages);
> > +int ___pkvm_host_donate_hyp(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot);
> > int __pkvm_hyp_donate_host(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages);
> > int __pkvm_host_share_ffa(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages);
> > int __pkvm_host_unshare_ffa(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages);
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > index 8957734d6183..861e448183fd 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > @@ -769,13 +769,15 @@ int __pkvm_host_unshare_hyp(u64 pfn)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > -int __pkvm_host_donate_hyp(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages)
> > +int ___pkvm_host_donate_hyp(u64 pfn, u64 nr_pages, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot)
> > {
> > u64 phys = hyp_pfn_to_phys(pfn);
> > u64 size = PAGE_SIZE * nr_pages;
> > void *virt = __hyp_va(phys);
> > int ret;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_X);
>
> Should this actually just enforce that the permissions are
> KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RW:
>
> WARN_ON((prot & KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RWX) != KVM_PGTABLE_PROT_RW);
>
> ?
>
> Since the motivation is about the memory type rather than the
> permissions, it would be best to preserve the current behaviour.

Yes, this series doesn't do any permisson changes, I was not sure if
that would be needed in the future or not (some RO mappings), but I will
update the check as suggested to be more strict.

Thanks,
Mostafa

>
> Will