[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250401-innocent-outrageous-deer-0946c5@sudeepholla>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 13:55:45 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@...gle.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
joey.gouly@....com, maz@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, snehalreddy@...gle.com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, vdonnefort@...gle.com, will@...nel.org,
yuzenghui@...wei.com, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Andrei Homescu <ahomescu@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: arm64: Release the ownership of the hyp rx
buffer to Trustzone
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 12:00:38PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 28 Mar 2025 at 14:18:55 (+0000), Sebastian Ene wrote:
> >
> > If we apply what I suggested earlier we won't have an issue with the
> > semantic for this call but it would make the code a mess. I don't think
> > for this particular call keeping semantics really makes a difference.
>
> Right, if we implemented the release call properly in pKVM I'd be happy
> with this patch, but I just don't think we should only do one half. We
> either do it properly in pKVM or leave it with to the host -- the latter
> feels simpler to me, but no strong opinions.
>
FYI:
As part of the earlier discussion with respect to clarification on this
from the FF-A spec, I found even the driver was not handling this correctly.
I have posted the fix since and plan to get it merged as fix for v6.15
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250321115700.3525197-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists