From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=139.138.61.252 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793789252; b=dnqWJZB0tfKzHZWEZGZwKmP7bDYzu8XzYJt+Dt5m0BgMV2BYjHIJhf9MlbrHyO0o8f0r 1M06Q819siVkPqROKQtOhJzGtTr94cRELMUuw2XwzNWVcUL8usM/JcGIN2DxTI46K0FR6 30G0AVIayIMbo4KOPYkqEJg+ZjNrT5AlW3l/V0R7rcG8rcd13lYIdhz42ESvxBTPTxg78 Dr0OOb07Vp0zOangUL2o7L+U89VySAGx6b7zArGN1aN2V7WtZTXDYQfpPOGoKTN4caz8u ImY1Bfrc1gBK/t/DzhGiWhJPy+lflbKVzN4hwrRTlRlAAxgyCTeD1Oa/Jf8y9QbpX2w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793789252; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:X-CSE-ConnectionGUID:X-CSE-MsgGUID: X-IronPort-AV:X-IronPort-AV:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date: From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=22l6K0vc3gDu3+b6teU5yRSj5i9d0PgiGkuk6VorJmM=; b=gpMD/ykEZ+wiKcd4f1BkGMr/EW69GRU8+JN59ISio8qLaubTt3gXe5HPk3OkuhSLGYmQ qnVYaj9q5kcj3yYcRXVVt5ux9X5TBCZDXFUNmjuEifdeCfAwLwdyvb3pOcUDq6JcwYwdw +T0lo9fbSFPo2Ko67VyTfqDG9yqfoVE8/SSAMvJDXnhgK6hfXlQjWL7rbCFPap0hTRMkH uR//lahZSXzTG/bWEoqh9lRZvphdKxqcwyJnG9UfgPkF3Id9xAOHziYUrykgKxesiAdPC zk+beBKXJdbz/xWQZE7FWM20UBxo2SsZsElO1QIqUe9Pk38MFl2ToaKWSnkTi2/0nrg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=fujitsu.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com; dkim=pass header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fj2 header.b=OCMRmMCT; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=139.138.61.252 Received: from esa7.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com (esa7.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com [139.138.61.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B374606A331; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:47:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 4B374606A331 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fujitsu.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=fujitsu.com header.i=@fujitsu.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fj2 header.b=OCMRmMCT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=fujitsu.com; i=@fujitsu.com; q=dns/txt; s=fj2; t=1793789251; x=1825325251; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=bX+/GudjC/kKj8X2pfBeTqIEajpanRfKGl78WAKq9sc=; b=OCMRmMCTniiJX89CtofPAk1XkvlkxlUlukGasjd5EBvB1EiuNGcdTn10 gWTGD3aRoLoLagJDSaKC2d7z78g7RUrVBbYcP8T3FzmGJaJqTsNUK1ko6 DMzQn5lNTx9hSstw7cVub+Yli9rV+H6/Gr8T0UjqMtlLi/tTavdJxfGqi mS7P/YKOdNyfZHRKFrrSFAn+7t131Y0cYC0tt5rUSL4kIxRioWNMlD6W6 PVvziNp8rZWWoMXCmT49mv++7274fIyfU3YQYb5FzmJzqRO4nSdcHdL22 0KmyS98cFYpFMm2EMy/G80JkOqVykgH/I4DPq/Oprgy7qZsy7OWxDpdbN g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7FHHPqQXTP2joOQKyp/UJw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: lqi9HaqMQpa2Cel04XkqhA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11955"; a="239465831" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.27,195,1786978800"; d="scan'208";a="239465831" Received: from gmgwnl01.global.fujitsu.com ([52.143.17.124]) by esa7.hc1455-7.c3s2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Nov 2026 19:47:23 +0900 Received: from az2nlsmgm4.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.150.26.204]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by gmgwnl01.global.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F2AD1C00643; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from az2nlsmom3.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.150.26.199]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by az2nlsmgm4.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DCC01000864; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from FCCLS0092175.localdomain (unknown [10.9.61.160]) by az2nlsmom3.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 246CD100A6C9; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 10:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 19:47:12 +0900 From: Kohei Enju To: Suzuki K Poulose Cc: Steven Price , kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , James Morse , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Alexandru Elisei , Christoffer Dall , Fuad Tabba , linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Gavin Shan , Shanker Donthineni , Alper Gun , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Emi Kisanuki , Vishal Annapurve , WeiLin.Chang@arm.com, Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] KVM: arm64: CCA: Check for RMI support at KVM init Message-ID: References: <20261102141304.126883-1-steven.price@arm.com> <20261102141304.126883-4-steven.price@arm.com> <415f6a96-9ac2-4256-a9b9-e976bd0e73a8@arm.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <415f6a96-9ac2-4256-a9b9-e976bd0e73a8@arm.com> On 11/04 10:39, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Kohei > > On 04/11/2026 10:27, Kohei Enju wrote: > > On 11/04 19:23, Kohei Enju wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > > > On 11/02 14:12, Steven Price wrote: > > > > Check if the RMI support is sufficient for using in KVM. Specifically, we > > > > will only support creating realm VMs when KVM is set to 'rmm' mode. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Price > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/rmi.c | 4 +++- > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig > > > > index cecea0820e52..d067063a3686 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig > > > > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ menuconfig KVM > > > > select GUEST_PERF_EVENTS if PERF_EVENTS > > > > select KVM_GUEST_MEMFD > > > > select KVM_GENERIC_PRE_FAULT_MEMORY > > > > + select ARM_RMM_RMI > > > > help > > > > Support hosting virtualized guest machines. > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/rmi.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/rmi.c > > > > index 5ecc8b349869..9d118768550d 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/rmi.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/rmi.c > > > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > > > * Copyright (C) 2023-2026 ARM Ltd. > > > > */ > > > > +#include > > > > #include > > > > #include > > > > @@ -12,7 +13,8 @@ void kvm_init_rmi(void) > > > > if (kvm_get_mode() != KVM_MODE_RMM) > > > > return; > > > > - /* TODO: Check if the RMI is available */ > > > > + if (!is_rmi_available()) > > > > + return; > > > > > > From an admin/operator's perspective, kvm_rmi_is_available would > > > silently remain FALSE in either of the following cases: > > > - kvm-arm.mode=rmm is set, but RMI is not available for some reason. > > We could add a kvm_info() message for this. > > > > - RMI is available, but the admin forgot to set kvm-arm.mode=rmm. > > But not this one. We are additionally planning to move the RMM > activation to gate on kvm-arm.mode=rmm. I will send out a patch > soon. I wasn't aware of that plan. In that case, this scenario will be unreachable, so I have no concerns. Thanks, Kohei