Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231009230858.3444834-1-rananta@google.com> <20231009230858.3444834-9-rananta@google.com>
 <5d35c9f3-455e-6aa9-fd6a-4433cf70803a@redhat.com> <CAJHc60z7U1-irTy-6URb_V0PTW+TYS4qodf2akSg33_7CJgjyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f7cd9b3d-c817-7082-d60a-a529e1c82f1e@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <f7cd9b3d-c817-7082-d60a-a529e1c82f1e@redhat.com>
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:05:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJHc60xJs+NzjfG_ESvQuyYdV0bDSwAetuam7yO35FOZBBJ9fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit
 PMCR_EL0.N for the guest
To:     Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
        Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 3:45=E2=80=AFAM Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 8:52=E2=80=AFAM Sebastian Ott <sebott@redhat.co=
m> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> >>> +static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc=
 *r,
> >>> +                 u64 val)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     struct kvm *kvm =3D vcpu->kvm;
> >>> +     u64 new_n, mutable_mask;
> >>> +
> >>> +     mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> >>> +
> >>> +     /*
> >>> +      * Make PMCR immutable once the VM has started running, but do
> >>> +      * not return an error (-EBUSY) to meet the existing expectatio=
ns.
> >>> +      */
> >>
> >> Why should we mention which error we're _not_ returning?
> >>
> > Oh, it's not to break the existing userspace expectations. Before this
> > series, any 'write' from userspace was possible. Returning -EBUSY all
> > of a sudden might tamper with this expectation.
>
> Yes I get that part. What I've meant is why specifically mention -EBUSY?
> You're also not returning -EFAULT nor -EINVAL.
>
> /*
>   * Make PMCR immutable once the VM has started running, but do
>   * not return an error to meet the existing expectations.
>   */
> IMHO provides the same info to the reader and is less confusing
>
Sounds good. I'll apply this.

Thank you.
Raghavendra
> Sebastian