On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:27:50AM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/23/19 9:14 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:12:34AM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> >>A per vcpu flag is added to check if pointer authentication is
> >>enabled for the vcpu or not. This flag may be enabled according to
> >>the necessary user policies and host capabilities.
> >>
> >>This patch also adds a helper to check the flag.
> >>
> >>Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kach...@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@arm.com>
> >>Cc: kvm...@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> >>---
> >>Changes since v9:
> >>
> >>* Added ptrauth cpufeature static check in vcpu_has_ptrauth [Marc Zyngier].
> >>
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 +++++
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>index 7a096fd..7ccac42 100644
> >>--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>@@ -355,10 +355,15 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> >> #define KVM_ARM64_HOST_SVE_ENABLED (1 << 4) /* SVE enabled for EL0
> >> */
> >> #define KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_SVE (1 << 5) /* SVE exposed to
> >> guest */
> >> #define KVM_ARM64_VCPU_SVE_FINALIZED (1 << 6) /* SVE config
> >> completed */
> >>+#define KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_PTRAUTH (1 << 7) /* PTRAUTH exposed to
> >>guest */
> >> #define vcpu_has_sve(vcpu) (system_supports_sve() && \
> >> ((vcpu)->arch.flags & KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_SVE))
> >>+#define vcpu_has_ptrauth(vcpu) ((system_supports_address_auth() || \
> >>+ system_supports_generic_auth()) && \
> >
> >Come to think of it, should this be
> >system_supports_address_auth() _&&_ system_supports_generic_auth()?
> I thought about it and kept it this way so that the implementation
> limitation is not introduced in this patch but only in a single place in the
> 3rd patch where all the documentation and reasoning is present on doing this
> way.
OK, I think that's reasonable. Just wanted to check that I wasn't
missing some subtle issue here.
Cheers
---Dave
