Re: [PATCH v17 06/20] KVM: arm64: CCA: Add a new mode for supporting Realm guests

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 10/09/2026 06:53, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On 9/9/26 2:22 AM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > Add an explicit mode to support Arm CCA guests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +++
> >   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h               | 1 +
> >   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c                            | 5 +++++
> >   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/ 
> > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > index 68647ff4bdd24..1afe3df3b923e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > @@ -3256,6 +3256,9 @@ Kernel parameters
> >               nested: VHE-based mode with support for nested
> >                   virtualization. Requires at least ARMv8.4
> >                   hardware (with FEAT_NV2).
> > +            rmm: Support for running confidential guests in Realm
> > +                 world using RMM, as defined by Arm Confidential
> > +                 Compute Architecture (CCA)
>
> I'm not sure, but 'realm' would be more appropriate name. rmm (Real 
> Management Monitor) is
> the term limited to the firmware to me. Besides, we have been using 
> 'realm' broadly in this
> series like kvm_vm_is_realm(), kvm_realm_state() and so on.

May be. But we use the "mode" of the hypervisor in question here, 
mostly. e.g., nvhe, vhe, protected etc. So, I went with RMM (in favor
of CCA). Does that make sense ? Also, we rely on firmware/arm_rmm for
the support. So, it kind of make sense to keep it "rmm" ?

Cheers
Suzuki