Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] KVM: arm64: Fix underallocation of storage for SVE state

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 01:49:37PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 19:03, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > My general feeling is that it would have been perfectly fine for pKVM to
> > enforce what the host kernel wants to do anyway, if we ever do add
> > support for using asymmetric VLs and care about doing so on a system
> > running pKVM then dealing with pKVM imposed limits at that time seems
> > more than reasonable.  It probably wouldn't be the largest part of the
> > work.  Equally we now have the code so we may as well use it?  It's not
> > imposing huge overheads.

> From pKVM, this would work and other than the potential for future
> support for using asymmetric VLs, I don't really see a problem. Much
> of the complexity was an attempt not to make pKVM more restrictive
> than other modes.

Right, so it's just a question of if we want to use the code that
doesn't impose the limit given that we have it already.  I'm throwing a
patch that limits the host VL into CI, should be out today.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature