Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/11] KVM: arm64: Setup a framework for hypercall bitmap firmware registers

From: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 10:21:20 +0000

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 06:42:15 +0000,
Jason Wang <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 在 2022/1/5 上午3:49, Raghavendra Rao Ananta 写道:
> > KVM regularly introduces new hypercall services to the guests without
> > any consent from the Virtual Machine Manager (VMM). This means, the
> > guests can observe hypercall services in and out as they migrate
> > across various host kernel versions. This could be a major problem
> > if the guest discovered a hypercall, started using it, and after
> > getting migrated to an older kernel realizes that it's no longer
> > available. Depending on how the guest handles the change, there's
> > a potential chance that the guest would just panic.
> > 
> > As a result, there's a need for the VMM to elect the services that
> > it wishes the guest to discover. VMM can elect these services based
> > on the kernels spread across its (migration) fleet. To remedy this,
> > extend the existing firmware psuedo-registers, such as
> > KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, for all the hypercall services available.
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't gone through the series but I wonder whether it's better to
> have a (e)BPF filter for this like seccomp.

No, please. This has to fit in the save/restore model, and should be
under control of the VMM. If you want to filter things using seccomp,
that's fine, but also that's completely orthogonal.

	M.

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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel