MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220104194918.373612-1-rananta@google.com> <20220104194918.373612-5-rananta@google.com>
 <CAAeT=FztkibSajKjnpRfObx+D1r8H1s_8-5MmqjemJTfmb2mpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHc60ywYgAPfG11Ljkj3qzLoUn9mZPKnPH0P-HYS-pfs+A__g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAeT=FwA9X9eXrF+Q31Wzah=UkM-B8bMJObjJ=oCV0rjLfX6=g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAeT=FwA9X9eXrF+Q31Wzah=UkM-B8bMJObjJ=oCV0rjLfX6=g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:02:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJHc60y6b-scY8zcPuLnjGtr6HzSBnmhi2mCnmkNm4nTxgMTUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/11] KVM: arm64: Setup a framework for hypercall
 bitmap firmware registers
To:     Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:12 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 4:51 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 9, 2022 at 10:29 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Raghu,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:49 AM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> > > <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > These firmware registers are categorized based on the service call
> > > > owners, and unlike the existing firmware psuedo-registers, they hold
> > > > the features supported in the form of a bitmap.
> > > >
> > > > The capability, KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP, is used to announce
> > > > this extension, which returns the number of psuedo-firmware
> > > > registers supported. During the VM initialization, the registers
> > > > holds an upper-limit of the features supported by the corresponding
> > > > registers. It's expected that the VMMs discover the features
> > > > provided by each register via GET_ONE_REG, and writeback the
> > > > desired values using SET_ONE_REG. KVM allows this modification
> > > > only until the VM has started.
> > > >
> > > > Older VMMs can simply ignore the capability and the hypercall services
> > > > will be exposed unconditionally to the guests, thus ensuring backward
> > > > compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > In this patch, the framework adds the register only for ARM's standard
> > > > secure services (owner value 4). Currently, this includes support only
> > > > for ARM True Random Number Generator (TRNG) service, with bit-0 of the
> > > > register representing mandatory features of v1.0. Other services are
> > > > momentarily added in the upcoming patches.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  12 ++++
> > > >  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |   4 ++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c              |   4 ++
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c       | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > >  arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c             |   8 +--
> > > >  include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h      |   6 ++
> > > >  6 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > index 2a5f7f38006f..a32cded0371b 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > > @@ -102,6 +102,15 @@ struct kvm_s2_mmu {
> > > >  struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * struct kvm_hvc_desc: KVM ARM64 hypercall descriptor
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @hvc_std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct kvm_hvc_desc {
> > > > +       u64 hvc_std_bmap;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  struct kvm_arch {
> > > >         struct kvm_s2_mmu mmu;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -137,6 +146,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> > > >
> > > >         /* Memory Tagging Extension enabled for the guest */
> > > >         bool mte_enabled;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* Hypercall firmware register' descriptor */
> > > > +       struct kvm_hvc_desc hvc_desc;
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > >  struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > > index b3edde68bc3e..0d6f29c58456 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > > @@ -281,6 +281,10 @@ struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
> > > >  #define KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2_NOT_REQUIRED       3
> > > >  #define KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2_ENABLED            (1U << 4)
> > > >
> > > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP                   KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(3)
> > > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0          BIT(0)
> > > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX           0       /* Last valid bit */
> > > > +
> > > >  /* SVE registers */
> > > >  #define KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE              (0x15 << KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > > index e4727dc771bf..56fe81565235 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > > @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> > > >         kvm->arch.max_vcpus = kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus();
> > > >
> > > >         set_default_spectre(kvm);
> > > > +       kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(kvm);
> > > >
> > > >         return ret;
> > > >  out_free_stage2_pgd:
> > > > @@ -283,6 +284,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> > > >         case KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC:
> > > >                 r = system_has_full_ptr_auth();
> > > >                 break;
> > > > +       case KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP:
> > > > +               r = kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs();
> > > > +               break;
> > >
> > > Looking at the discussion for the v2 series,
> > >
> > >  https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20211130101958.fcdqthphyhxzvzla@gator.home/
> > >
> > > I assume that the number of the pseudo-firmware bitmap registers
> > > will be used to clear pseudo firmware bitmap registers that
> > > userspace doesn't know.
> > > I'm wondering how userspace can identify which pseudo-firmware
> > > registers that KVM_GET_REG_LIST provides are the pseudo-firmware
> > > bitmap registers that it doesn't know.
> > > For instance, suppose pseudo-firmware registers that KVM_GET_REG_LIST
> > > provides are KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(0) to KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(9), userspace
> > > doesn't knows KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(6) to KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(9), and
> > > KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP returns 5, how can userspace identify
> > > remaining two bitmap registers from those 4 (fw-reg #6 to #9)
> > > firmware registers ?
> > >
> > In v3, we leave the decision upto the userspace. If the userspace
> > encounters a register that it's unaware, it can choose either to clear
> > it or let it get exposed to the guest as is (see the code snipped
> > shared by Andrew in the link).
> > Trying to understand the question better- are you asking how would
> > userspace distinguish between bitmap and regular fw registers with
> > intermixed sequence numbers?
>
> Yes, that's my question.
>
>
> > If yes, do you foresee a reason why they 'unaware' registers needed to
> > be treated differently?
>
> Since I'm not sure what the specification of 'unaware' (non-bitmap)
> registers will be, it would be safer for us to assume that they might
> need to be treated differently from the bitmap registers.
> Considering there is KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, which KVM doesn't allow
> userspace to set to 0, there might be similar registers that userspace
> cannot set to 0 in the future.
>
> BTW, If you assume that all those 'unaware' firmware registers are
> treated in the same way, I don't think userspace needs the number of
> those bitmap registers from KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP (Instead,
> I would think it can handle the 'unaware' registers with a list of
> firmware registers from KVM_GET_REG_LIST).
>
You are right; mixing these registers would create an issue for the
VMM. Instead, we can probably have a subset of the KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG
space dedicated for the bitmapped firmware registers, something like:

#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW_BMAP_BASE     KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(0xff00)  /*
Upper half of the fw reg space */
#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW_BMAP_REG(r)    (KVM_REG_ARM_FW_BMAP_BASE | (r))

#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP              KVM_REG_ARM_FW_BMAP_REG(0)

With this, I think the VMM can easily detect a bitmap fw register.
Also, if it encounters an unknown bitmapped register it can handle it
separately if it likes.
The minor advantage of the CAP still returning the number of bitmapped
registers can be an inexpensive shortcut to VMM to get a general idea
of the number of registers.

> > >
> > > >         default:
> > > >                 r = 0;
> > > >         }
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > > index 3c2fcf31ad3d..06243e4670eb 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > > @@ -58,6 +58,29 @@ static void kvm_ptp_get_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *val)
> > > >         val[3] = lower_32_bits(cycles);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static bool kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(u64 reg_bmap, u64 feat_bit)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       return reg_bmap & feat_bit;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +bool kvm_hvc_call_supported(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &vcpu->kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> > > > +
> > > > +       switch (func_id) {
> > > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION:
> > > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> > > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
> > > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32:
> > > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64:
> > > > +               return kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap,
> > > > +                                               KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0);
> > > > +       default:
> > > > +               /* By default, allow the services that aren't listed here */
> > > > +               return true;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > kvm_hvc_call_supported() could return true even for @func_id that
> > > kvm_hvc_call_handler() returns -EINVAL for.  Is this behavior what
> > > you really want ?
> > Yes. My idea was to let kvm_hvc_call_supported() check for the
> > support, while kvm_hvc_call_handler() does the real processing of the
> > call.
> >
> > > If so, IMHO the function name might be a bit mis-leading.
> > > "kvm_hvc_call_disabled" (and flip the return value)
> > > might be closer to what it does(?).
> > >
> > Sorry, I'm unclear how flipping is helping. Wouldn't we return 'false'
> > if we don't have a case for the func_id, indicating it's NOT disabled,
> > but kvm_hvc_call_handler() can still return SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED?
>
> Yes, that's fine, too.
> Since those services are disabled (because they are enabled by default),
> I just thought checking 'disabled' might be closer to what it does than
> checking 'enabled'.  But, 'enabled' is also fine.
>
> > >
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  {
> > > >         u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
> > > > @@ -65,6 +88,9 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >         u32 feature;
> > > >         gpa_t gpa;
> > > >
> > > > +       if (!kvm_hvc_call_supported(vcpu, func_id))
> > > > +               goto out;
> > > > +
> > > >         switch (func_id) {
> > > >         case ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID:
> > > >                 val[0] = ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1;
> > > > @@ -143,6 +169,7 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >                 return kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > +out:
> > > >         smccc_set_retval(vcpu, val[0], val[1], val[2], val[3]);
> > > >         return 1;
> > > >  }
> > > > @@ -153,9 +180,25 @@ static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids[] = {
> > > >         KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2,
> > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > +static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids[] = {
> > > > +       KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> > > > +
> > > > +       hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap = ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +int kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids);
> > > > +       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids) + kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs();
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
> > > > @@ -167,6 +210,11 @@ int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
> > > >                         return -EFAULT;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > +       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids); i++) {
> > > > +               if (put_user(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids[i], uindices++))
> > > > +                       return -EFAULT;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > @@ -211,9 +259,20 @@ static int get_kernel_wa_level(u64 regid)
> > > >         return -EINVAL;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static void
> > > > +kvm_arm_get_fw_reg_bmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 fw_reg_bmap, u64 *val)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> > > > +
> > > > +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > +       *val = fw_reg_bmap;
> > > > +       mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > >
> > > Why does it need to hold the lock ? (Wouldn't READ_ONCE be enough ?)
> > >
> > I don't have much experience with READ_ONCE at this point, but do you
> > think this read can be protected again the read/write in
> > kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap()?
>
> If kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap is changed to use WRITE_ONCE to
> update hvc_desc->hvc_*_bmap (kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap still needs
> to get the lock to prevent other vCPUs from running KVM_RUN),
> I would think using READ_ONCE in kvm_arm_get_fw_reg_bmap() without
> getting the lock should work (will see either old or new value).
>
That makes sense. Thanks for the suggestion and all the reviews.

Regards,
Raghavendra

> Thanks,
> Reiji
>
>
> > >
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > > >  {
> > > >         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(long)reg->addr;
> > > > +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &vcpu->kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> > > >         u64 val;
> > > >
> > > >         switch (reg->id) {
> > > > @@ -224,6 +283,9 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > > >         case KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2:
> > > >                 val = get_kernel_wa_level(reg->id) & KVM_REG_FEATURE_LEVEL_MASK;
> > > >                 break;
> > > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> > > > +               kvm_arm_get_fw_reg_bmap(vcpu, hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap, &val);
> > > > +               break;
> > > >         default:
> > > >                 return -ENOENT;
> > > >         }
> > > > @@ -234,6 +296,43 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > > >         return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > +static int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg_id, u64 val)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       int ret = 0;
> > > > +       struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> > > > +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> > > > +       u64 *fw_reg_bmap, fw_reg_features;
> > > > +
> > > > +       switch (reg_id) {
> > > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> > > > +               fw_reg_bmap = &hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap;
> > > > +               fw_reg_features = ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> > > > +               break;
> > > > +       default:
> > > > +               return -ENOENT;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > > +       /* Check for unsupported bit */
> > > > +       if (val & ~fw_reg_features)
> > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +       /*
> > > > +        * If the VM (any vCPU) has already started running, return success
> > > > +        * if there's no change in the value. Else, return -EBUSY.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       if (kvm_vm_has_started(kvm)) {
> > > > +               ret = *fw_reg_bmap != val ? -EBUSY : 0;
> > > > +               goto out;
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > > +       *fw_reg_bmap = val;
> > > > +out:
> > > > +       mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > > > +       return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > > >  {
> > > >         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(long)reg->addr;
> > > > @@ -310,6 +409,8 @@ int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > > >                         return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > >                 return 0;
> > > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> > > > +               return kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(vcpu, reg->id, val);
> > > >         default:
> > > >                 return -ENOENT;
> > > >         }
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> > > > index 99bdd7103c9c..23f912514b06 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> > > > @@ -60,14 +60,8 @@ int kvm_trng_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >                 val = ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION_1_0;
> > > >                 break;
> > > >         case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> > > > -               switch (smccc_get_arg1(vcpu)) {
> > > > -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION:
> > > > -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> > > > -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
> > > > -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32:
> > > > -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64:
> > > > +               if (kvm_hvc_call_supported(vcpu, smccc_get_arg1(vcpu)))
> > > >                         val = TRNG_SUCCESS;
> > >
> > > kvm_hvc_call_supported() returns true for any values that are
> > > not explicitly listed in kvm_hvc_call_supported() (i.e. it returns
> > > true even for @func_id that are not any of ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_*).
> > > So, I don't think it can simply use the current kvm_hvc_call_supported.
> > >
> > You are right. Probably I should leave the case statements as is (or
> > think of some better way).
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the review and suggestions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Raghavendra
> > > Thanks,
> > > Reiji
> > >
> > > > -               }
> > > >                 break;
> > > >         case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
> > > >                 smccc_set_retval(vcpu, le32_to_cpu(u[0]), le32_to_cpu(u[1]),
> > > > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > > index 5d38628a8d04..8fe68d8d6d96 100644
> > > > --- a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > > @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
> > > >
> > > >  #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
> > > >
> > > > +#define ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES \
> > > > +       GENMASK_ULL(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX, 0)
> > > > +
> > > >  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > >
> > > >  static inline u32 smccc_get_function(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > @@ -42,9 +45,12 @@ static inline void smccc_set_retval(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > >
> > > >  struct kvm_one_reg;
> > > >
> > > > +void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > > +int kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs(void);
> > > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > >  int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices);
> > > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg);
> > > >  int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg);
> > > > +bool kvm_hvc_call_supported(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id);
> > > >
> > > >  #endif
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1.448.ga2b2bfdf31-goog
> > > >