Dave Martin <[email protected]> writes: > When trapping forbidden attempts by a guest to use SVE, we want the > guest to see a trap consistent with SVE not being implemented. > > This patch injects an undefined instruction exception into the > guest in response to such an exception.
I do wonder if this should be merged with the previous trap enabling patch though? > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c > index 17d8a16..e3e42d0 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c > @@ -147,6 +147,13 @@ static int kvm_handle_unknown_ec(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > struct kvm_run *run) > return 1; > } > > +static int handle_sve(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run) > +{ > + /* Until SVE is supported for guests: */ > + kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu); > + return 1; > +} > + > static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = { > [0 ... ESR_ELx_EC_MAX] = kvm_handle_unknown_ec, > [ESR_ELx_EC_WFx] = kvm_handle_wfx, > @@ -160,6 +167,7 @@ static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = { > [ESR_ELx_EC_HVC64] = handle_hvc, > [ESR_ELx_EC_SMC64] = handle_smc, > [ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64] = kvm_handle_sys_reg, > + [ESR_ELx_EC_SVE] = handle_sve, > [ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_LOW] = kvm_handle_guest_abort, > [ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_LOW] = kvm_handle_guest_abort, > [ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW]= kvm_handle_guest_debug, -- Alex Bennée _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
