Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220423000328.2103733-1-rananta@google.com> <20220423000328.2103733-3-rananta@google.com>
 <CAAeT=Fyv2Hc1oPb=UiDUvCSpzS9iYbEPBCvXuskBniTcOKfA5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHc60z3kiQMkdj4wQ2ixmd-MaA5bQT0SwDQYcUbACMaAOWrSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHc60z3kiQMkdj4wQ2ixmd-MaA5bQT0SwDQYcUbACMaAOWrSg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:46:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAeT=FwcbpVW1PzAqbv+eDSXnA1_80a+-r78YpOrd3fZ9MYk5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/9] KVM: arm64: Setup a framework for hypercall bitmap
 firmware registers
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@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

Hi Raghu,

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:46 AM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
<rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Reiji,
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:52 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Raghu,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:03 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> > <rananta@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > KVM regularly introduces new hypercall services to the guests without
> > > any consent from the userspace. 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 userspace to elect the services
> > > that it wishes the guest to discover. It can elect these services
> > > based on the kernels spread across its (migration) fleet. To remedy
> > > this, extend the existing firmware pseudo-registers, such as
> > > KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, but by creating a new COPROC register space
> > > for all the hypercall services available.
> > >
> > > These firmware registers are categorized based on the service call
> > > owners, but unlike the existing firmware pseudo-registers, they hold
> > > the features supported in the form of a bitmap.
> > >
> > > During the VM initialization, the registers are set to 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 write back the desired values using SET_ONE_REG.
> > > KVM allows this modification only until the VM has started.
> > >
> > > Some of the standard features are not mapped to any bits of the
> > > registers. But since they can recreate the original problem of
> > > making it available without userspace's consent, they need to
> > > be explicitly added to the case-list in
> > > kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(). Any function-id that's not enabled
> > > via the bitmap, or not listed in kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed, will
> > > be returned as SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED to the guest.
> > >
> > > Older userspace code can simply ignore the feature 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 |  9 +++
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c              |  1 +
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c            |  8 ++-
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c       | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c             | 13 +++++
> > >  include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h      |  6 ++
> > >  include/kvm/arm_psci.h            |  2 +-
> > >  8 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 94a27a7520f4..df07f4c10197 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -101,6 +101,15 @@ struct kvm_s2_mmu {
> > >  struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * struct kvm_smccc_features: Descriptor the hypercall services exposed to the guests
> > > + *
> > > + * @std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls
> > > + */
> > > +struct kvm_smccc_features {
> > > +       unsigned long std_bmap;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > >  struct kvm_arch {
> > >         struct kvm_s2_mmu mmu;
> > >
> > > @@ -150,6 +159,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> > >
> > >         u8 pfr0_csv2;
> > >         u8 pfr0_csv3;
> > > +
> > > +       /* Hypercall features firmware registers' descriptor */
> > > +       struct kvm_smccc_features smccc_feat;
> > >  };
> > >
> > >  struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > index c1b6ddc02d2f..0b79d2dc6ffd 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > @@ -332,6 +332,15 @@ struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
> > >  #define KVM_ARM64_SVE_VLS_WORDS        \
> > >         ((KVM_ARM64_SVE_VQ_MAX - KVM_ARM64_SVE_VQ_MIN) / 64 + 1)
> > >
> > > +/* Bitmap feature firmware registers */
> > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP               (0x0016 << KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT)
> > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(r)                (KVM_REG_ARM64 | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | \
> > > +                                               KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP |      \
> > > +                                               ((r) & 0xffff))
> > > +
> > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP                   KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(0)
> > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0          0
> > > +
> > >  /* Device Control API: ARM VGIC */
> > >  #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR      0
> > >  #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS 1
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > index 523bc934fe2f..a37fadbd617e 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:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > > index 0d5cca56cbda..8c607199cad1 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> > > @@ -756,7 +756,9 @@ int kvm_arm_get_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > >
> > >         switch (reg->id & KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_MASK) {
> > >         case KVM_REG_ARM_CORE:  return get_core_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > > -       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW:    return kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW:
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP:
> > > +               return kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > >         case KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE: return get_sve_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > >         }
> > >
> > > @@ -774,7 +776,9 @@ int kvm_arm_set_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > >
> > >         switch (reg->id & KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_MASK) {
> > >         case KVM_REG_ARM_CORE:  return set_core_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > > -       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW:    return kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW:
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP:
> > > +               return kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > >         case KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE: return set_sve_reg(vcpu, reg);
> > >         }
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > index fa6d9378d8e7..df55a04d2fe8 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > > @@ -58,6 +58,48 @@ 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(unsigned long *reg_bmap, unsigned long feat_bit)
> > > +{
> > > +       return test_bit(feat_bit, reg_bmap);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> > > +{
> > > +       switch (func_id) {
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * List of function-ids that are not gated with the bitmapped feature
> > > +        * firmware registers, and are to be allowed for servicing the call by default.
> > > +        */
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_FEATURES:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
> > > +       case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID:
> > > +               return true;
> > > +       default:
> > > +               return kvm_psci_func_id_is_valid(vcpu, func_id);
> > > +       }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static bool kvm_hvc_call_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct kvm_smccc_features *smccc_feat = &vcpu->kvm->arch.smccc_feat;
> > > +
> > > +       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(&smccc_feat->std_bmap,
> > > +                                               KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0);
> > > +       default:
> > > +               return kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(vcpu, func_id);
> > > +       }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > >         u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
> > > @@ -65,6 +107,9 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >         u32 feature;
> > >         gpa_t gpa;
> > >
> > > +       if (!kvm_hvc_call_allowed(vcpu, func_id))
> > > +               goto out;
> > > +
> > >         switch (func_id) {
> > >         case ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID:
> > >                 val[0] = ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1;
> > > @@ -155,6 +200,7 @@ 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;
> > >  }
> > > @@ -164,8 +210,16 @@ static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids[] = {
> > >         KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1,
> > >         KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2,
> > >         KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_3,
> > > +       KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP,
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct kvm_smccc_features *smccc_feat = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat;
> > > +
> > > +       smccc_feat->std_bmap = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >  {
> > >         return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids);
> > > @@ -237,6 +291,7 @@ static int get_kernel_wa_level(u64 regid)
> > >
> > >  int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > >  {
> > > +       struct kvm_smccc_features *smccc_feat = &vcpu->kvm->arch.smccc_feat;
> > >         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(long)reg->addr;
> > >         u64 val;
> > >
> > > @@ -249,6 +304,9 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> > >         case KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_3:
> > >                 val = get_kernel_wa_level(reg->id) & KVM_REG_FEATURE_LEVEL_MASK;
> > >                 break;
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> > > +               val = READ_ONCE(smccc_feat->std_bmap);
> > > +               break;
> > >         default:
> > >                 return -ENOENT;
> > >         }
> > > @@ -259,6 +317,40 @@ 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_smccc_features *smccc_feat = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat;
> > > +       unsigned long *fw_reg_bmap, fw_reg_features;
> > > +
> > > +       switch (reg_id) {
> > > +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> > > +               fw_reg_bmap = &smccc_feat->std_bmap;
> > > +               fw_reg_features = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> > > +               break;
> > > +       default:
> > > +               return -ENOENT;
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       /* Check for unsupported bit */
> > > +       if (val & ~fw_reg_features)
> > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> >
> > Why don't you check if the register value will be modified before
> > getting the lock ? (then there is nothing to do)
> > It would help reduce unnecessary serialization for live migration
> > (even without the vm-scoped register capability).
> >
> That was the case until v5. Since v6, we return -EBUSY unconditionally
> regardless of the incoming value. See Marc's comments in [1].

> That was the case until v5. Since v6, we return -EBUSY unconditionally
> regardless of the incoming value. See Marc's comments in [1].

Even with that, the function could do below to avoid
the unnecessary serialization.
(I would expect mostly the function returns before getting the lock)

        if (test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_HAS_RAN_ONCE, &kvm->arch.flags))
              return -EBUSY;

        if (val == *fw_reg_bmap)
              return 0;

        mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);

        <...>

> >
> >
> > > +
> > > +       /* Return -EBUSY if the VM (any vCPU) has already started running. */
> > > +       if (test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_HAS_RAN_ONCE, &kvm->arch.flags)) {
> > > +               ret = -EBUSY;
> > > +               goto out;
> > > +       }
> >
> > I just would like to make sure that you are sure that existing
> > userspace you know will not run KVM_RUN for any vCPUs until
> > KVM_SET_ONE_REG is complete for all vCPUs (even for migration),
> > correct ?
> >
> Since v6, that is something that we are leaving with the userspace to
> synchronize. See [1].

Understood.


> > > +o
> > > +       WRITE_ONCE(*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;
> > > @@ -337,6 +429,8 @@ 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/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c
> > > index 346535169faa..67d1273e8086 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c
> > > @@ -436,3 +436,16 @@ int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >         }
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +bool kvm_psci_func_id_is_valid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> > > +{
> > > +       /* PSCI 0.1 doesn't comply with the standard SMCCC */
> > > +       if (kvm_psci_version(vcpu) == KVM_ARM_PSCI_0_1)
> > > +               return (func_id == KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_OFF || func_id == KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_ON);
> > > +
> > > +       if (ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_NUM(func_id) == ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD &&
> > > +               ARM_SMCCC_FUNC_NUM(func_id) >= 0 && ARM_SMCCC_FUNC_NUM(func_id) <= 0x1f)
> > > +               return true;
> >
> > For PSCI 0.1, the function checks if the funct_id is valid for
> > the vCPU (according to the vCPU's PSCI version).
> > For other version of PSCI, the function doesn't care the vCPU's
> > PSCI version (although supported functions depend on the PSCI
> > version and not all of them are defined yet, the code returns
> > true as long as the function id is within the reserved PSCI
> > function id range).
> > So, the behavior appears to be inconsistent.
> > Shouldn't it return the validity of the function id according
> > to the vCPU's psci version for non-PSCI 0.1 case as well ?
> > (Otherwise, shouldn't it return true if the function id is valid
> > for any of the PSCI versions ?)
> >
> Well, PSCI 1.0 is somewhat of an odd implementation. It doesn't comply
> with the SMCCC, hence needed some special handling. Only two func_ids> are currently supported by KVM, and we just check for each. The second
> 'if' statement is for all the PSCI versions >= 0.2. Thankfully, the
> specification defines a range of acceptable PSCI func_ids.

I understand PSCI 0.1 is different from PSCI 0.2 or newer versions.
But, my question is: What would you consider "valid" psci function id ?
It seems that the function checks whether or not the func_id is valid
on the vCPU for PSCI 0.1, and checks whether or not the func_id is a
PSCI function id for vCPU with PSCI 0.2 or newer.

I understand either one works for your purpose, but I would think
the behavior should be consistent.

Thanks,
Reiji


>
> If it's confusing, I can add a comment above the second 'if' that it's
> for all PSCI versions >= 0.2.
> > Thanks,
> > Reiji
> >
> Thank you.
> Raghavendra
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87ilrlb6un.wl-maz@kernel.org/
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > +       return false;
> > > +}
> > > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > index 5d38628a8d04..499b45b607b6 100644
> > > --- a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,11 @@
> > >
> > >  #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
> > >
> > > +/* Last valid bits of the bitmapped firmware registers */
> > > +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX           0
> > > +
> > > +#define KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES             GENMASK(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)
> > > @@ -42,6 +47,7 @@ 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_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);
> > > diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_psci.h b/include/kvm/arm_psci.h
> > > index 6e55b9283789..c47be3e26965 100644
> > > --- a/include/kvm/arm_psci.h
> > > +++ b/include/kvm/arm_psci.h
> > > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static inline int kvm_psci_version(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >         return KVM_ARM_PSCI_0_1;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -
> > >  int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > +bool kvm_psci_func_id_is_valid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id);
> > >
> > >  #endif /* __KVM_ARM_PSCI_H__ */
> > > --
> > > 2.36.0.rc2.479.g8af0fa9b8e-goog
> > >