[PATCH 1/2] ARM: hyp-stub: improve ABI

[Marc Zyngier]

On 15/12/16 15:15, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:46:41AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 15/12/16 11:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:18:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 14/12/16 10:46, Russell King wrote:
>>>>> @@ -231,10 +244,14 @@ ENDPROC(__hyp_stub_do_trap)
>>>>>   * initialisation entry point.
>>>>>   */
>>>>>  ENTRY(__hyp_get_vectors)
>>>>> -	mov	r0, #-1
>>>>> +	mov	r0, #HVC_GET_VECTORS
>>>>
>>>> This breaks the KVM implementation of __hyp_get_vectors, easily fixed
>>>> with the following patchlet:
>>>
>>> Right, so what Mark said is wrong:
>>>
>>> "The hyp-stub is part of the kernel image, and the API is private to
>>>  that particular image, so we can change things -- there's no ABI to
>>>  worry about."
>>
>> I think Mark is right. The API *is* private to the kernel, and KVM being
>> the only in-kernel hypervisor on ARM, this is not an ABI.
> 
> Again, that's wrong.
> 
> We have two hypervisors in the kernel.  One is KVM, the other is the
> stub.  Sure, the stub isn't a full implementation of a hypervisor, but
> it is nevertheless, for the purposes of _this_ discussion, a hypervisor
> of sorts.
> 
> The reason that both are included is because they both appear to share
> a common interface (although that's totally not documented anywhere.)

And this interface exists for the sole purpose of enabling KVM. Call it
a hypervisor if you wish, but its usefulness is doubtful on its own.

>>> So no, I'm going with my original patch (which TI has tested) which is
>>> the minimal change, and if we _then_ want to rework the HYP mode
>>> interfaces, that's the time to do the other changes when more people
>>> (such as KVM folk) are paying attention and we can come to a cross-
>>> hypervisor agreement on what the interface should be.
>>
>> Given that there is a single in-kernel hypervisor, I can't really see
>> who we're going to agree anything with...
> 
> As far as I can see, the hyp-stub falls under ARM arch maintanence.
> KVM falls under KVM people.  Two different groups, we need agreement
> between them what a sane API for both "hypervisors" should be.

Well, I though we had the right level of discussion by reviewing your
patches and coming up with improvements. If you're after something else,
please let me know.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...