[PATCH v1] KVM: arm64: pkvm: Clear GICv3 LRs in the hypervisor

[Marc Zyngier]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:14:21 +0100,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 02:25:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:50:22 +0100,
> > Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort at google.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 01:22:28PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:00:00 +0100,
> > > > Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort at google.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > The LR registers are architecturally UNKNOWN when the CPU boots or
> > > > > resumes. However, in protected mode, only the used ones are reset.
> > > > > During boot the HVC __vgic_v3_init_lrs() is never called because
> > > > > vgic_present is only set in init_subsystems(), after cpu_hyp_init() was
> > > > > called.
> > > > 
> > > > Why don't you fix this rather than making the init even more
> > > > different?
> > > 
> > > Ack, I'll make a patch to fix that first.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Also, the PM notifier isn't registered for pKVM and the HVC
> > > > > becomes unavailable after the host is deprivileged.
> > > > 
> > > > Sanitising the LRs on PSCI_ON is probably the right thing to do, but I
> > > > don't understand why resetting the LRs is out of reach from the host,
> > > > given that the host is fully in charge of the interrupt injection, and
> > > > therefore controls the LRs.
> > > 
> > > I suppose I could reinstantiate the pm callbacks for pkvm to at least reset the
> > > LRs?
> > 
> > I think there are two different things:
> > 
> > - pKVM must not rely on the host resetting the LRs once it is
> >   deprivileged (that's the PSCI_ON case)
> 
> Definitely not a hot path, but if we keep this one ^, isn't a shame of making
> the host issue HVCs on CPU resume to reset the LRs if we know the hypervisor did
> it anyway?

The really annoying thing is that we have divergence between
hypervisor backends that make the code fragile and harder to
maintain. Specially as we add CCA to the mix.

So my approach to this is to stop messing with the host code. It
should do what it is notionally supposed to do, and the hypervisor
code can do its own stuff. You can always optimise away the reset on
PSCI_ON if you add some tracking.

Is it worth it? Absolutely not. But that's where the complexity should
go.

Thanks,

	M.

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