Re: [PATCH v14 00/39] arm64/sme: Initial support for the Scalable Matrix Extension

On Wed, 4 May 2022 at 05:22, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 06:23:40PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:22:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > This series provides initial support for the ARMv9 Scalable Matrix > > > Extension (SME). SME takes the approach used

Re: [PATCH v14 00/39] arm64/sme: Initial support for the Scalable Matrix Extension

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 06:23:40PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:22:08PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > This series provides initial support for the ARMv9 Scalable Matrix > > Extension (SME). SME takes the approach used for vectors in SVE and > > extends this to provide

[PATCH] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Consistently populate ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.GIC

When adding support for the slightly wonky Apple M1, we had to populate ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.GIC==1 to present something to the guest, as the HW itself doesn't advertise the feature. However, we gated this on the in-kernel irqchip being created. This causes some trouble for QEMU, which snapshots the

Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] KVM: arm64: Add support for hypercall services selection

On Tue, 03 May 2022 19:49:13 +0100, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:24 AM Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:38:44 +0100, > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Continuing the discussion from [1], the series

Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] KVM: arm64: Hypervisor stack enhancements

On Mon, 02 May 2022 17:54:45 +0100, Kalesh Singh wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:55 PM Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:42:51 -0700, Kalesh Singh wrote: > > > This is v8 of the nVHE hypervisor stack enhancements. This version is > > > based > > > on 5.18-rc3. > > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Undo work in failed ITS restores

Hi Ricardo, On 4/27/22 20:48, Ricardo Koller wrote: > Failed ITS restores should clean up all state restored until the > failure. There is some cleanup already present when failing to restore > some tables, but it's not complete. Add the missing cleanup. > > Note that this changes the behavior in

Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Do not ignore vgic_its_restore_cte failures

Hi Ricardo, On 4/27/22 20:48, Ricardo Koller wrote: > Restoring a corrupted collection entry is being ignored and treated as maybe precise what is a corrupted ITE (out of range id or not matching guest RAM) > success. More specifically, vgic_its_restore_cte failure is treated as > success by

Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] KVM: arm64: Add support for hypercall services selection

On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:38:44 +0100, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > Hello, > > Continuing the discussion from [1], the series tries to add support > for the userspace to elect the hypercall services that it wishes > to expose to the guest, rather than the guest discovering them >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Add more checks when restoring ITS tables

Hi Ricardo, On 4/27/22 20:48, Ricardo Koller wrote: > Try to improve the predictability of ITS save/restores (and debuggability > of failed ITS saves) by failing early on restore when trying to read > corrupted tables. > > Restoring the ITS tables does some checks for corrupted tables, but not as

Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Check that new ITEs could be saved in guest memory

Hi Ricardo, On 4/27/22 20:48, Ricardo Koller wrote: > Try to improve the predictability of ITS save/restores by failing > commands that would lead to failed saves. More specifically, fail any > command that adds an entry into an ITS table that is not in guest > memory, which would otherwise lead

Re: [PATCH v7 6/9] Docs: KVM: Add doc for the bitmap firmware registers

On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:38:50 +0100, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > Add the documentation for the bitmap firmware registers in > hypercalls.rst and api.rst. This includes the details for > KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP, KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP, and > KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP registers. > > Since

Re: [PATCH v7 2/9] KVM: arm64: Setup a framework for hypercall bitmap firmware registers

On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:38:46 +0100, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > KVM regularly introduces new hypercall services to the guests without > any consent from the userspace. This means, the guests can observe > hypercall services in and out as they migrate across various host > kernel versions.

Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] KVM: arm64: Factor out firmware register handling from psci.c

On Tue, 03 May 2022 00:38:45 +0100, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote: > > Common hypercall firmware register handing is currently employed > by psci.c. Since the upcoming patches add more of these registers, > it's better to move the generic handling to hypercall.c for a > cleaner presentation. > >

Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] KVM: arm64: Limit feature register reads from AArch32

On Tue, 3 May 2022 06:01:58 +, Oliver Upton wrote: > KVM/arm64 does not restrict the guest's view of the AArch32 feature > registers when read from AArch32. HCR_EL2.TID3 is cleared for AArch32 > guests, meaning that register reads come straight from hardware. This is > problematic as KVM

Re: [PATCH v14 04/39] arm64/sme: Provide ABI documentation for SME

The 04/28/2022 10:19, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:22:12PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > +* There are a number of optional SME features, presence of these is > > reported > > + through AT_HWCAP2 through: > > + > > + HWCAP2_SME_I16I64 > > + HWCAP2_SME_F64F64 > > +