[PATCH v4 04/14] KVM: arm64: Use KVM extension checks for allowed protected VM capabilities

[Fuad Tabba]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 at 13:29, Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday 09 Dec 2024 at 08:14:15 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 17:10, Quentin Perret <qperret at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday 02 Dec 2024 at 15:47:31 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/pkvm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/pkvm.c
> > > > index fb733b36c6c1..59ff6aac514c 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/pkvm.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/pkvm.c
> > > > @@ -329,34 +329,20 @@ static void pkvm_init_features_from_host(struct pkvm_hyp_vm *hyp_vm, const struc
> > > >
> > > >       bitmap_zero(allowed_features, KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES);
> > > >
> > > > -     /*
> > > > -      * For protected VMs, always allow:
> > > > -      * - CPU starting in poweroff state
> > > > -      * - PSCI v0.2
> > > > -      */
> > > > -     set_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF, allowed_features);
> > >
> > > For my understanding, why do we drop this bit?
> >
> > Since the hypervisor is responsible for the power state of protected
> > VMs. This should either be a separate patch or I should explain it in
> > the commit message. Any preference?
>
> Gotcha, perhaps make that its own patch so we have a commit message
> motivating the change?

Will do.
/fuad