Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: arm64: Support FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ in host handler
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-08 15:26:27
Also in:
kvmarm, lkml
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 02:07:53AM +0000, Per Larsen via B4 Relay wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Sebastian Ene <redacted> Allow direct messages to be forwarded from the host. The host should not be sending framework messages so they are filtered out. Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <redacted> Reviewed-by: Yeoreum Yun <redacted> Signed-off-by: Per Larsen <redacted> --- arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/arm_ffa.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c index 58b7d0c477d7fce235fc70d089d175c7879861b5..a38a3ab497e5eac11777109684a33f02d88d09a1 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c@@ -862,6 +862,23 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res, hyp_spin_unlock(&host_buffers.lock); } +static void do_ffa_direct_msg(struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *res, + struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt, + u64 vm_handle) +{ + DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 2); + + struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs *args = (void *)&ctxt->regs.regs[0]; + + /* filter out framework messages */ + if (FIELD_GET(FFA_MSG_FLAGS_MSG_TYPE, flags)) {
Wouldn't we be better off just checking that flags is 0? The rest of it is SBZ or MBZ in the current spec.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ ffa_to_smccc_error(res, FFA_RET_INVALID_PARAMETERS); + return; + } + + arm_smccc_1_2_smc(args, res); +} + bool kvm_host_ffa_handler(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt, u32 func_id) { struct arm_smccc_1_2_regs res;@@ -920,6 +937,11 @@ bool kvm_host_ffa_handler(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt, u32 func_id) case FFA_PARTITION_INFO_GET: do_ffa_part_get(&res, host_ctxt); goto out_handled; + case FFA_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ: + case FFA_FN64_MSG_SEND_DIRECT_REQ: +
Weird whitespace addition ^^
+ do_ffa_direct_msg(&res, host_ctxt, HOST_FFA_ID);
What's the point of passing HOST_FFA_ID here? Is that supposed to end up in the Sender ID bits of W1? Will