2025-05-23T17:29:49+02:00, Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 23/05/2025 15:05, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2025-05-23T12:19:30+02:00, Clément Léger <cleger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_fwft.c
>>> +static const enum sbi_fwft_feature_t kvm_fwft_defined_features[] = {
>>> + SBI_FWFT_MISALIGNED_EXC_DELEG,
>>> + SBI_FWFT_LANDING_PAD,
>>> + SBI_FWFT_SHADOW_STACK,
>>> + SBI_FWFT_DOUBLE_TRAP,
>>> + SBI_FWFT_PTE_AD_HW_UPDATING,
>>> + SBI_FWFT_POINTER_MASKING_PMLEN,
>>> +};
>>
>> How will userspace control which subset of these features is allowed in
>> the guest?
>>
>> (We can reuse the KVM SBI extension interface if we don't want to add a
>> FWFT specific ONE_REG.)
>
> Hi Radim,
>
> I didn't looked at that part. But most likely using the kvm one reg
> interface seems ok like what is done for STA ? We could have per feature
> override with one reg per feature.
Sounds fine.
> Is this something blocking though ? We'd like to merge FWFT once SBI 3.0
> is ratified so that would be nice not delaying it too much. I'll take a
> look at it to see if it isn't too long to implement.
Not blocking, but I would at least default FWFT to disabled, because
current userspace cannot handle [14/14]. (Well... save/restore was
probably broken even before, but let's try to not make it worse. :])
Thanks.
