Hi Connie

On 12/22/25 2:17 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/25/25 6:04 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 25 2025, Eric Auger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> More recent kernels sometimes expose new registers in an
>>> unconditionnal manner. This situation breaks backward migration
>>> as qemu notices there are more registers in the input stream
>>> than supported on the destination host. This leads to a
>>> "failed to load cpu:cpreg_vmstate_array_len" error.
>>>
>>> A good example is the introduction of KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2
>>> pseudo FW register in v6.16 by commit C0000e58c74e (“KVM: arm64:
>>> Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2”). Trying to do backward
>>> migration from a host kernel that features the commit to a destination
>>> host that doesn't, fail with above error.
>>>
>>> Currently QEMU is not using that feature so ignoring this latter
>>> is not a problem. An easy way to fix the migration issue is to teach
>>> qemu we don't care about that register and we can simply ignore it
>>> when syncing its state during migration.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces an array of such hidden registers. Soon it will
>>> be settable through an array property.
>>>
>>> If hidden, the register is moved out of the array of cpreg which is
>>> built in kvm_arm_init_cpreg_list(). That way their state won't be
>>> synced.
>> I'm wondering whether the patch description should also mention non-KVM
>> cases (e.g. the bogus reg that was exposed). It might also make sense to
>> merge patch 5 here?
> 
> Actually the AArch32 DBGDTRTX is not "hidden" on destination but rather
> marked as safe to ignore in the incoming stream (so the other category).
> So I don't have any example of TCG usage for this category.
> 
> wrt potiential merge I agree they could. 2nd patch is an enforcement of
> non access so I prefer to keep them separate but will put them
> contiguously in the series. 
Sorry I mixed up with 6/11. I will squash 5/11 in this patch.

Thanks!

Eric>
> Eric 
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> Otherwise, LGTM.
>>
> 



Reply via email to