Re: [PATCH v16 21/45] KVM: arm64: CCA: Handle realm enter/exit

[Aneesh Kumar K . V]

Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> writes:
> +
> +	switch (rec->run->exit.exit_reason) {
> +	case RMI_EXIT_SYNC:
> +		/*
> +		 * HPFAR_EL2_NS is hijacked to indicate a valid HPFAR value,
> +		 * see __get_fault_info()
> +		 */
> +		vcpu->arch.fault.hpfar_el2 = rec->run->exit.hpfar | HPFAR_EL2_NS;
> +		rec_exit_sync(vcpu);
> +		return ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP;
> +	case RMI_EXIT_IRQ:
> +	case RMI_EXIT_FIQ:
> +		return ARM_EXCEPTION_IRQ;
> +	case RMI_EXIT_SERROR:
> +		return ARM_EXCEPTION_EL1_SERROR;
> +	case RMI_EXIT_PSCI:
> +		rec_exit_hvc(vcpu);
> +		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RMI, vcpu);
>

I'm also wondering whether we can move the kvm_make_request() call until
after the PSCI/HOST_CALL handling is complete. I tried a quick hack, but
it did not look particularly clean, since we would end up adding
RMM-specific checks in handle_hvc():

ret = kvm_smccc_call_handler(vcpu);

if (vcpu_is_rec(vcpu) &&
    (vcpu->arch.rec.run->exit.exit_reason == RMI_EXIT_PSCI ||
     vcpu->arch.rec.run->exit.exit_reason == RMI_EXIT_HOST_CALL))
	kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RMI, vcpu);

That said, having rec_exit_hvc(vcpu) and kvm_make_request() back-to-back
is also somewhat confusing. Perhaps we could at least add a comment
explaining why the request must always be made here.


> +		return ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP;
> +	case RMI_EXIT_RIPAS_CHANGE:
> +		rec_exit_hvc(vcpu);
> +		return ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP;
> +	}
> +
> +	return rec_exit_fatal(vcpu, "Unsupported Realm exit reason",
> +			      rec->run->exit.exit_reason);
> +}

-aneesh