On 21/06/2019 10:37, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> From: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
>
> We were not allowing userspace to set a more privileged mode for the VCPU
> than EL1, but we should allow this when nested virtualization is enabled
> for the VCPU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> index 3ae2f82fca46..4c35b5d51e21 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
> #include <asm/kvm_coproc.h>
> #include <asm/kvm_host.h>
> +#include <asm/kvm_nested.h>
> #include <asm/sigcontext.h>
>
> #include "trace.h"
> @@ -194,6 +195,11 @@ static int set_core_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const
> struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> if (vcpu_el1_is_32bit(vcpu))
> return -EINVAL;
> break;
> + case PSR_MODE_EL2h:
> + case PSR_MODE_EL2t:
> + if (vcpu_el1_is_32bit(vcpu) ||
> !nested_virt_in_use(vcpu))
This condition reads a bit weirdly. Why do we care about anything else
than !nested_virt_in_use() ?
If nested virt is not in use then obviously we return the error.
If nested virt is in use then why do we care about EL1? Or should this
test read as "highest_el_is_32bit" ?
Thanks,
--
Julien Thierry
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
