Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <77d4d867-cfa1-bdef-dddd-0f28493a4e6e@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:33:45 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] arm64: Disable EL2 traps for BRBE instructions
 executed in EL1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230516083015.569248-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20230605140038.GB21212@willie-the-truck>
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230605140038.GB21212@willie-the-truck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 6/5/23 19:30, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 02:00:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This disables EL2 traps for BRBE instructions executed in EL1. This would
>> enable BRBE to be configured and used successfully in the guest kernel.
>> While here, this updates Documentation/arm64/booting.rst as well.
> 
> Is it safe to give the guest access to BRBE if the hypervisor doesn't
> switch the state? I'm assuming the architecture defaults to "trap" for a
> reason and disabling the trap alone isn't sufficient.

Hmm, understood.

> 
> If it _is_ safe, please can you explain that in the commit message? If not,
> then this should be at the end of the series adding hypervisor support.

Sure, will add the patch when adding hypervisor support for BRBE.