Re: [PATCH v7 9/10] KVM: arm64: docs: document KVM support of pointer authentication
From: Kristina Martsenko
Date: Wed Mar 20 2019 - 11:04:21 EST
On 20/03/2019 13:37, Julien Thierry wrote:
> Hi Amit,
> On 19/03/2019 08:30, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>> This adds sections for KVM API extension for pointer authentication.
>> A brief description about usage of pointer authentication for KVM guests
>> is added in the arm64 documentations.
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> index 7de9eee..b5c66bc 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> @@ -2659,6 +2659,12 @@ Possible features:
>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2.
>> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3: Emulate PMUv3 for the CPU.
>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3.
>> + - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS:
>> + - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC:
>> + Enables Pointer authentication for the CPU.
>> + Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH and only on arm64 architecture. If
>> + set, then the KVM guest allows the execution of pointer authentication
>> + instructions. Otherwise, KVM treats these instructions as undefined.
> Overall I feel one could easily get confused to whether
> PTRAUTH_ADDRESS/GENERIC are two individual features, whether one is a
> superset of the other, if the names are just an alias of one another, etc...
> I think the doc should at least stress out that *both* flags are
> required to enable ptrauth in a guest. However it raises the question,
> if we don't plan to support the features individually (because we
> can't), should we really expose two feature flags? I seems odd to
> introduce two flags that only do something if used together...
Why can't we support the features individually? For example, if we ever
get a system where all CPUs support address authentication and none of
them support generic authentication, then we could still support address
authentication in the guest.