On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 5:16 AM Andrew Jones [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 01:22:24AM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:

quoted

Common hypercall firmware register handing is currently employed
by psci.c. Since the upcoming patches add more of these registers,
it's better to move the generic handling to hypercall.c for a
cleaner presentation.

While we are at it, collect all the firmware registers under
fw_reg_ids[] to help implement kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs() and
kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices() in a generic way.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c       |   2 +-
 arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c  | 170 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c        | 166 ----------------------------------
 include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h |   7 ++
 include/kvm/arm_psci.h       |   7 --
 5 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 174 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
index 5ce26bedf23c..625f97f7b304 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
 #include <linux/string.h>
 #include <linux/vmalloc.h>
 #include <linux/fs.h>
-#include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
+#include <kvm/arm_hypercalls.h>
 #include <asm/cputype.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 #include <asm/fpsimd.h>

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
index 30da78f72b3b..9e136d91b470 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c

@@ -146,3 +146,173 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
      smccc_set_retval(vcpu, val[0], val[1], val[2], val[3]);
      return 1;
 }
+
+static const u64 fw_reg_ids[] = {
+     KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION,
+     KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1,
+     KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2,
+};
+
+int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+     return ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_ids);
+}
+
+int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
+{
+     int i;
+
+     for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(fw_reg_ids); i++) {
+             if (put_user(fw_reg_ids[i], uindices))

This is missing the ++ on uindices, so it just writes the same offset
three times.

Thanks for catching this! I believe I realized this later and
corrected it in patch-04/11 of the series and missed it here.
I'll fix it here as well.

quoted

+                     return -EFAULT;
+     }
+
+     return 0;
+}

I assume the rest of the patch is just a cut+paste move of code.

That's right.

Regards,
Raghavendra

Thanks,
drew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel