[PATCH 13/20] KVM: arm64: Move RESx into individual register descriptors
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Thu Jan 29 09:19:55 PST 2026
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:29:39 +0000,
Fuad Tabba <tabba at google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 at 12:17, Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Instead of hacking the RES1 bits at runtime, move them into the
> > register descriptors. This makes it significantly nicer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/config.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
> > index 7063fffc22799..d5871758f1fcc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct reg_bits_to_feat_map {
> > #define RES0_WHEN_E2H1 BIT(7) /* RES0 when E2H=1 and not supported */
> > #define RES1_WHEN_E2H0 BIT(8) /* RES1 when E2H=0 and not supported */
> > #define RES1_WHEN_E2H1 BIT(9) /* RES1 when E2H=1 and not supported */
> > +#define FORCE_RESx BIT(10) /* Unconditional RESx */
> >
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > @@ -107,6 +108,11 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc {
> > */
> > #define NEEDS_FEAT(m, ...) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, 0, __VA_ARGS__)
> >
> > +/* Declare fixed RESx bits */
> > +#define FORCE_RES0(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx, enforce_resx)
> > +#define FORCE_RES1(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx | AS_RES1, \
> > + enforce_resx)
> > +
> > /*
> > * Declare the dependency between a non-FGT register, a set of
> > * feature, and the set of individual bits it contains. This generates
>
> nit: features
>
> > @@ -230,6 +236,15 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc {
> > #define FEAT_HCX ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HCX, IMP
> > #define FEAT_S2PIE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S2PIE, IMP
> >
> > +static bool enforce_resx(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Returning false here means that the RESx bits will be always
> > + * addded to the fixed set bit. Yes, this is counter-intuitive.
>
> nit: added
>
> > + */
> > + return false;
> > +}
>
> I see what you're doing here, but it took me a while to get it and
> convince myself that there aren't any bugs (my self couldn't find any
> bugs, but I wouldn't trust him that much). You already introduce a new
> flag, FORCE_RESx. Why not just check that directly in the
> compute_resx_bits() loop, before the check for CALL_FUNC?
>
> + if (map[i].flags & FORCE_RESx)
> + match = false;
> + else if (map[i].flags & CALL_FUNC)
> ...
>
> The way it is now, to understand FORCE_RES0, you must trace a flag, a
> macro expansion, and a function pointer, just to set a boolean to
> false.
With that scheme, you'd write something like:
+#define FORCE_RES0(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx)
This construct would need a new __NEEDS_FEAT_0() macro that doesn't
take any argument other than flags. Something like below (untested).
M.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
index 9485e1f2dc0b7..364bdd1e5be51 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c
@@ -79,6 +79,12 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc {
.match = (fun), \
}
+#define __NEEDS_FEAT_0(m, f, w, ...) \
+ { \
+ .w = (m), \
+ .flags = (f), \
+ }
+
#define __NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, f, w, ...) \
CONCATENATE(__NEEDS_FEAT_, COUNT_ARGS(__VA_ARGS__))(m, f, w, __VA_ARGS__)
@@ -95,9 +101,8 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc {
#define NEEDS_FEAT(m, ...) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, 0, __VA_ARGS__)
/* Declare fixed RESx bits */
-#define FORCE_RES0(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx, enforce_resx)
-#define FORCE_RES1(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx | AS_RES1, \
- enforce_resx)
+#define FORCE_RES0(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx)
+#define FORCE_RES1(m) NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(m, FORCE_RESx | AS_RES1)
/*
* Declare the dependency between a non-FGT register, a set of
@@ -221,15 +226,6 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc {
#define FEAT_HCX ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HCX, IMP
#define FEAT_S2PIE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S2PIE, IMP
-static bool enforce_resx(struct kvm *kvm)
-{
- /*
- * Returning false here means that the RESx bits will be always
- * addded to the fixed set bit. Yes, this is counter-intuitive.
- */
- return false;
-}
-
static bool not_feat_aa64el3(struct kvm *kvm)
{
return !kvm_has_feat(kvm, FEAT_AA64EL3);
@@ -996,7 +992,7 @@ static const struct reg_bits_to_feat_map hcr_feat_map[] = {
NEEDS_FEAT(HCR_EL2_TWEDEL |
HCR_EL2_TWEDEn,
FEAT_TWED),
- NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(HCR_EL2_E2H, RES1_WHEN_E2H1, enforce_resx),
+ NEEDS_FEAT_FLAG(HCR_EL2_E2H, RES1_WHEN_E2H1 | FORCE_RESx),
FORCE_RES0(HCR_EL2_RES0),
FORCE_RES1(HCR_EL2_RES1),
};
@@ -1362,7 +1358,9 @@ struct resx compute_resx_bits(struct kvm *kvm,
if (map[i].flags & exclude)
continue;
- if (map[i].flags & CALL_FUNC)
+ if (map[i].flags & FORCE_RESx)
+ match = false;
+ else if (map[i].flags & CALL_FUNC)
match = map[i].match(kvm);
else
match = idreg_feat_match(kvm, &map[i]);
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list