Hi Marc, On 1/14/21 11:56 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > We shouldn't expose *any* PMU capability when no PMU has been > configured for this VM. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <m...@kernel.org> > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > index 0c0832472c4a..ce08d28ab15c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > @@ -1048,8 +1048,8 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > } else if (id == SYS_ID_DFR0_EL1) { > /* Limit guests to PMUv3 for ARMv8.1 */ > val = cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field(val, > - ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT, > - ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1); > + ID_DFR0_PERFMON_SHIFT, > + kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) ? > ID_DFR0_PERFMON_8_1 : 0); nit: Maybe you could use the same layout for SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 andremove cap there.
Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com> Eric > } > > return val; > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm