From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A067E3B2FDF; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 14:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790865402; cv=none; b=Cr/JbnQLYXOnE8N8wAp6grkXw/d5VL0q2Oy6vhvB+oY1KZy7Y6caE88vwC3URZad4IlEr6W1gO8yzax+zxMjyC/7uTJfdB5vRS4uRorgCGYX0/6ZJ2kEXCFG98g2+1N6h0gwy/vtC5fhQG5RLfKDIbdjKWwtZrqej/Xl3d7a/08= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790865402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2kxmO6iReapZ9oKKYWiYUJYQSMUSU1Lhiqom05w8dw0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kGuek9lkqkzz6+4zJ97jR55NAVWwAnBCxKDBOPQVZV30wcFGYCep7lFnUUXZKfCtykLcfrJYr/Ddr8TYc6F0yjNXT9tFaS3cikddjkhns4Y35lratQEZG9dq6lo5ndZaJnXGuOTlSMt5DtDh47FzbYIu46Mpj4fXnk/bf4ELiJU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=oRA3ndmu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="oRA3ndmu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 731E11F000FF; Thu, 1 Oct 2026 14:36:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790865397; bh=KqppwbTyT6zkR1AvrZPfMSRvNskOl/Jz4/VeCTg9S+8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=oRA3ndmuic8x5tRK8Thog7048p9/0q1/4fqTgxaNdxfq2ksuOlOiYGYor6Edw5mFh gbvysr6lqUVRtSROKKKFcydrUR4RABYSu2qIUBBNEEbKqM1p2z4uKUQHArX06X3jJ6 MFbDk23qOyANQ6TQq68cZYSKJCPBFnzLFV0R9ES5BRxzev1bjVfOz5tZBV3AqnGJ37 AkHkZPtEfhJU+WU+tWgk2Ug6+d9PXdoDBnZtKaMRNnQvgc6gOh6WzgQGIsnMGG8vih oR/uj2xdHGU8jqPDFk+wEZo3O+KuG2Q9D4/q3JeXQmQSYTJfy5KRO6vlq6A7UTzpMB O/3vpWAUJQPVQ== Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2026 15:36:26 +0100 From: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Steffen Eiden , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev , Andreas Grapentin , Catalin Marinas , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" , Friedrich Welter , Fuad Tabba , Gautam Gala , Hariharan Mari , Heiko Carstens , Hendrik Brueckner , Ilya Leoshkevich , Janosch Frank , Joey Gouly , Marc Zyngier , Nico Boehr , Nina Schoetterl-Glausch , Oliver Upton , Paolo Bonzini , Sean Christopherson , Suzuki K Poulose , Sven Schnelle , Ulrich Weigand , Vasily Gorbik , Will Deacon , Zenghui Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 23/24] KVM: s390: arm64: Implement basic page fault handler Message-ID: References: <20260930173441.66762-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20260930173441.66762-24-seiden@linux.ibm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 01, 2026 at 03:35:37PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Another ones: after 34cfa9b3af17 ("KVM: arm64: Implement > KVM_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY"), we are now missing a kvm_arch_pre_fault_allowed() > definition in arch/s390/kvm/arm64/mmu.c: > > ERROR: modpost: arch/s390/kvm/arm64/kvm-arm64.ko: symbol 'kvm_arch_pre_fault_allowed' undefined! > > I copied the arm64 version without the pkvm reference to make it > build for me. > > Arnd > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/arm64/mmu.c b/arch/s390/kvm/arm64/mmu.c > index 7ee157c61d70..be16351acaae 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/arm64/mmu.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/arm64/mmu.c > @@ -179,6 +179,14 @@ int kvm_handle_guest_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return ret; > } > > +int kvm_arch_pre_fault_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + if (!kvm_vcpu_initialized(vcpu)) > + return -ENOEXEC; > + > + return 0; > +} > + Ah the s390 <-> kvm emulation stuff. Yep if it's meant to behave like arm64 then that should be correct. It's odd to me that pre-faulting was not previously implemented for actual-arm64 but was added as part of the virtualised s390/arm64 thing automatically :) Not sure if this implementation requires what s390 does with: +int kvm_arch_pre_fault_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + if (kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm)) + return -EINVAL; + + return 0; +} Or both conditions? One for the s390 guys. -- Cheers, Lorenzo