Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] KVM: PPC: Introduce KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS and wire up ioctl

[Amit Machhiwal]

On 2026/08/08 06:30 AM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > Introduce a new capability and ioctl to expose CPU compatibility modes
> > supported by the host processor for nested guests.
> >
> > On IBM POWER systems, newer processor generations (N) can operate in
> > compatibility modes corresponding to earlier generations, like (N-1) and
> > (N-2). This is particularly relevant for nested virtualization, where
> > nested KVM guests may need to run with a specific processor compatibility
> > level.
> >
> > Introduce KVM_CAP_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS capability and the corresponding
> > KVM_PPC_GET_COMPAT_CAPS vm ioctl. The ioctl returns a bitmap describing
> > the compatibility modes supported by the host in respective bit numbers,
> > allowing userspace (e.g., QEMU) to select an appropriate compatibility
> > level when configuring nested KVM guests.
> >
> > The ioctl handling is added in kvm_arch_vm_ioctl() and retrieves host
> > CPU compatibility capabilities via a PowerPC-specific backend
> > implementation when available.
> >
> > The struct kvm_ppc_compat_caps places the 'size' field first so it can
> > be read alone via get_user() before copy_struct_from_user() is called,
> > avoiding pointer arithmetic to locate the size field.
> >
> > The ioctl is defined using _IO so the ioctl number remains stable even if
> > the struct grows in future versions. It uses copy_struct_from_user() and
> > copy_struct_to_user() to provide forward- and backward-compatible
> > extensibility: older userspace passing a smaller struct to a newer kernel
> > gets zero-padded trailing fields. Newer userspace passing a larger struct to
> > an older kernel (usize > ksize) succeeds if trailing bytes are zero (the
> > kernel reports back min(usize, ksize) as the filled size); if trailing bytes
> > are non-zero, the kernel writes back ksize into host_caps.size and returns
> > -E2BIG so userspace can retry with the correct size.
> >
> > KVM_PPC_COMPAT_CAPS_SIZE_VER0 is defined as a frozen integer constant
> > (24) marking the size of the initial struct version, used as the
> > minimum floor for size field validation, similar to other versioned
> > struct interfaces in the kernel.
> >
> > The 'flags' field is reserved for future use. The kernel rejects any
> > call where flags is non-zero with -EINVAL, preventing garbage values
> > from being baked into ABI permanently.
> >
> > The ioctl returns appropriate error codes: E2BIG if usize exceeds
> > PAGE_SIZE, or if new userspace provides a larger struct with non-zero
> > trailing bytes (with ksize written back into host_caps.size for the
> > retry); EINVAL for an invalid size or non-zero reserved fields; EFAULT
> > for failed copy operations; and ENOTTY if the backend doesn't implement
> > get_compat_caps.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Gautam Menghani <gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Gautam Menghani <gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Anushree Mathur <anushree.mathur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes in this version:
> >   - Add PAGE_SIZE guard after get_user() to bound the check_zeroed_user()
> >     scan in the usize > ksize path [Ritesh]
> >   - Drop manual usize > sizeof(host_caps) pre-check; delegate entirely to
> >     copy_struct_from_user() which succeeds on zero trailing bytes and
> >     returns -E2BIG only on non-zero trailing bytes; handle -E2BIG with
> >     ksize writeback and -EFAULT escalation if put_user() fails [Ritesh]
> >   - Fix host_caps.size on success path: use min_t(u64, usize,
> >     sizeof(host_caps)) so new userspace with zero trailing bytes gets back
> >     the number of bytes the kernel actually populated, not usize [Ritesh]
> >
> 
> Thanks for addressing them!
> The only remaining comments from Sashiko now are because, it cannot find
> the implementation of ->get_compat_caps() since it is in the next patch.

Yes, correct.

> 
> So as for this patch, the changes looks good to me. Please feel free to
> add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for the review, Ritesh! Will carry the Reviewed-by in v9.

~Amit