[PATCH v3] KVM: arm64: Fix confusion in documentation for pKVM SME assert

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 02:33:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> As raised in the review comments for the original patch the assert and
> comment added in afb91f5f8ad7 ("KVM: arm64: Ensure that SME controls are
> disabled in protected mode") are bogus. The comments says that we check
> that we do not have SME enabled for a pKVM guest but the assert actually
> checks to see if the host has anything set in SVCR which is unrelated to
> the guest features or state, regardless of if those guests are protected
> or not. This check is also made in the hypervisor, it will refuse to run
> a guest if the check fails, so it appears that the assert here is
> intended to improve diagnostics.

This hasn't had any feedback for a whole release cycle - are there any
issues with the patch?

> Fixes: afb91f5f8ad7 ("KVM: arm64: Ensure that SME controls are disabled in protected mode")
> Reviewed-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba at google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie at kernel.org>

Faud reviewed it during the prior cycle.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20240912/8276f4da/attachment.sig>