[PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: Raise KVM's reported debug architecture to v8.2

[Marc Zyngier]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 19:18:13 +0100,
Oliver Upton <oupton at google.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey Marc,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 4:31 AM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 01:32:02 +0100,
> > Oliver Upton <oupton at google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > >       case SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1:
> > > -             /* Limit debug to ARMv8.0 */
> > > +             /* Limit debug to ARMv8.2 */
> > >               val &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER);
> > > -             val |= FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER), 6);
> > > +             val |= FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER), 8);
> > > +
> > > +             /* Hide DoubleLock from guests */
> > > +             val &= ~ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DOUBLELOCK);
> > > +             val |= FIELD_PREP(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_DOUBLELOCK), 0CF);
> > > +
> >
> > One issue with that is that this will break migration from an older
> > kernel (DFR0 will be different between source and destination).
> >
> > You'll need a set_user handler and deal with it in a similar way to
> > CSV2/CSV3.
> 
> Yeah, definitely so. In that case, unless we're strongly motivated to
> expose these changes soon, I'll just punt the ID register changes
> until Reiji's series [1] lands, as anything I add for a writable DFR0
> will invariably be scrapped in favor of his work.

Yeah, I think that's a sensible thing to do. I need to find the
bandwidth to look into these patches...

> I'll post v2 of this series folding in your feedback (thx for quick
> review, btw), less this patch.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.