Re: [PATCH v18 12/23] KVM: arm64: Widen the scope of "protected" VMs
From: Fuad Tabba <hidden>
Date: 2026-09-17 11:51:53
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm, linux-coco, lkml
Hi Suzuki, On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 17:01:30 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose [off-list ref] wrote: [...]
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
[...]
-#define kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm) ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PROTECTED_PKVM) +#define kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm) ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor >= __VM_PROTECTED) +#define kvm_vm_is_protected_pkvm(kvm) ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PROTECTED_PKVM) #define kvm_vm_is_unprotected_pkvm(kvm) ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PKVM)
Agree with Marc that this belongs in patch 5. When it moves, could you add vcpu_is_protected_pkvm() next to vcpu_is_protected()? The pKVM host-side series [1] has vcpu_is_protected() checks that are pKVM mechanism (the vCPU feature allowlist, CPU_ON against the pKVM power-off state, the ONE_REG rejection after the first run), and with the wider predicate those have to carry a pKVM-specific name. Cheers, /fuad [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260914113338.159227-1-fuad.tabba@linux.dev/ (local)