Re: [PATCH v23 14/14] KVM: arm64: Prevent unsupported vcpu features for VM types

From: Marc Zyngier

Date: Fri Oct 09 2026 - 04:56:22 EST


On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 15:19:53 +0100,
Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:35:37 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose
> <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 4d0e6bd2009ac..97089c81d6428 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -42,6 +42,13 @@
> > #define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 10
> > #define KVM_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES (BIT(KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES) - 1)
> >
> > +/* As dictated by kvm_pkvm_ext_allowed() */
> > +#define KVM_PROTECTED_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES \
> > + (BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF) | \
> > + BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2) | \
> > + BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS) | \
> > + BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC))
>
> kvmarm/next already restricts protected VM features through
> kvm_pkvm_vcpu_allowed_features(), shared with EL2 (0b7d843ef3bf).
> Could you rebase on that and drop the protected half of this patch,
> rather than add a second list?

A rebase would be a terrible idea. This thing *must* go on its own
branch, and not depend on anything else.

I can however fix things at merge time. is something like this what
you had in mind? It compiles, and is therefore perfect...

M.

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 300ffc2e31c7d..1c6632216e327 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -45,13 +45,6 @@
#define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 10
#define KVM_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES (BIT(KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES) - 1)

-/* As dictated by kvm_pkvm_ext_allowed() */
-#define KVM_PROTECTED_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES \
- (BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF) | \
- BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2) | \
- BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS) | \
- BIT(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC))
-
#define KVM_REQ_SLEEP \
KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(0, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
#define KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index 3ae8f51ce948a..a0e7f1d2d1575 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -1706,12 +1706,10 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_irq_line(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_irq_level *irq_level,

static unsigned long system_supported_vcpu_features(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
- unsigned long features;
+ unsigned long features = KVM_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES;

if (vcpu->kvm->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PROTECTED_PKVM)
- features = KVM_PROTECTED_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES;
- else
- features = KVM_VCPU_VALID_FEATURES;
+ kvm_pkvm_vcpu_allowed_features(vcpu->kvm, &features);

if (!cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1))
clear_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, &features);
@@ -1753,19 +1751,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_init_check_features(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
if (features & ~system_supported_vcpu_features(vcpu))
return -EINVAL;

- /* Reject features EL2 would drop when it creates the hyp VM. */
- if (vcpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
- DECLARE_BITMAP(allowed, KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES);
-
- kvm_pkvm_vcpu_allowed_features(vcpu->kvm, allowed);
- if (!bitmap_subset(&features, allowed, KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- /* EL2 implements PSCI 1.1; the host must not dispatch as 0.1. */
- if (!test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PSCI_0_2, &features))
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
/*
* For now make sure that both address/generic pointer authentication
* features are requested by the userspace together.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.