Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:54:20 +0000
From:   David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR ARM64 (KVM/arm64)" 
        <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-team@android.com,
        android-kvm@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 09/27] KVM: arm64: Allow using kvm_nvhe_sym() in hyp
 code
Message-ID: <20201123145420.hjl24xp6p2nn26u2@google.com>
References: <20201117181607.1761516-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20201117181607.1761516-10-qperret@google.com>
 <20201123125723.4mnodg3tnal4q4v2@google.com>
 <20201123140250.GB490744@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201123140250.GB490744@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 02:02:50PM +0000, 'Quentin Perret' via kernel-team wrote:
> On Monday 23 Nov 2020 at 12:57:23 (+0000), David Brazdil wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > index 882eb383bd75..391cf6753a13 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ static void cpu_prepare_hyp_mode(int cpu)
> > >  
> > >  	params->vector_hyp_va = kern_hyp_va((unsigned long)kvm_ksym_ref(__kvm_hyp_host_vector));
> > >  	params->stack_hyp_va = kern_hyp_va(per_cpu(kvm_arm_hyp_stack_page, cpu) + PAGE_SIZE);
> > > -	params->entry_hyp_va = kern_hyp_va((unsigned long)kvm_ksym_ref(__kvm_hyp_psci_cpu_entry));
> > > +	params->entry_hyp_va = kern_hyp_va((unsigned long)kvm_ksym_ref_nvhe(__kvm_hyp_psci_cpu_entry));
> > 
> > Why is this change needed?
> 
> You mean this line specifically or the whole __kvm_hyp_psci_cpu_entry
> thing?
> 
> For the latter, it is to avoid having the compiler complain about
> __kvm_hyp_psci_cpu_entry being re-defined as a different symbol. If
> there is a better way to solve this problem I'm happy to change it -- I
> must admit I got a little confused with the namespacing along the way.

Yeah, we do need a more robust approach. It's getting out of control.

> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@android.com.
>