[PATCH v4 00/61] arm64: Add support for LPA2 at stage1 and WXN

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 07:54:10PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:45:25 +0100,
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:15:50 +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > This is a followup to [0], which was sent out more than 6 months ago.
> > > Thanks to Ryan and Mark for feedback and review. This series is
> > > independent from Ryan's work on adding support for LPA2 to KVM - the
> > > only potential source of conflict should be the patch "arm64: kvm: Limit
> > > HYP VA and host S2 range to 48 bits when LPA2 is in effect", which could
> > > simply be dropped in favour of the KVM changes to make it support LPA2.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > I pushed the series to the arm64 for-next/lpa2-stage1 branch. If
> > something falls apart badly in -next (other than the typical conflicts),
> > I can drop the series before the upcoming merging window.
> > 
> > There are a couple of patches touching KVM, it would be good to get an
> > ack from Marc or Oliver (I'll rebase the branch if you do but no worries
> > if you don't get around). I think Ard's C++ style comments will
> > disappear with Ryan's LPA2 support for stage 2 (whenever that will get
> > merged).
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912141549.278777-119-ardb@google.com
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230912141549.278777-120-ardb@google.com
> > 
> > Talking of KVM, we'll get a conflict with next (depending on which
> > branch is picked first by sfr, the polarity may differ). That's my
> > resolution of merging Ard's patches into -next:
> > 
> > diff --cc arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > index 8d0a5834e883,c20b08cf1f03..34c17ec521c7
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > @@@ -128,9 -128,11 +128,11 @@@ static void prepare_host_vtcr(void
> >   	/* The host stage 2 is id-mapped, so use parange for T0SZ */
> >   	parange = kvm_get_parange(id_aa64mmfr0_el1_sys_val);
> >   	phys_shift = id_aa64mmfr0_parange_to_phys_shift(parange);
> > + 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_LPA2) && phys_shift > 48)
> > + 		phys_shift = 48; // not implemented yet
> >   
> >  -	host_mmu.arch.vtcr = kvm_get_vtcr(id_aa64mmfr0_el1_sys_val,
> >  -					  id_aa64mmfr1_el1_sys_val, phys_shift);
> >  +	host_mmu.arch.mmu.vtcr = kvm_get_vtcr(id_aa64mmfr0_el1_sys_val,
> >  +					      id_aa64mmfr1_el1_sys_val, phys_shift);
> >   }
> >   
> >   static bool host_stage2_force_pte_cb(u64 addr, u64 end, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot);
> > 
> > So Marc, Oliver, if you want to avoid this, you could merge the
> > lpa2-stage1 branch into the KVM tree once I freeze it.
> 
> Yeah, that's probably best (though this looks pretty minor). I'll let
> Oliver decide on it, as he's in charge this time around.

For some reason git manages to resolve it now without any problem. Not
sure what happened when I tried this last week. Let's see if Stephen
reports any conflicts.

Thanks for the acks.

-- 
Catalin