Re: [PATCH v18 12/23] KVM: arm64: Widen the scope of "protected" VMs

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 17/09/2026 12:51, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 17:01:30 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose
> <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> [...]
> > -#define kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm)        ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PROTECTED_PKVM)
> > +#define kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm)        ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor >= __VM_PROTECTED)
> > +#define kvm_vm_is_protected_pkvm(kvm)        ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PROTECTED_PKVM)
> >   #define kvm_vm_is_unprotected_pkvm(kvm)        ((kvm)->arch.vm_flavor == VM_PKVM)
>
> Agree with Marc that this belongs in patch 5. When it moves, could you
> add vcpu_is_protected_pkvm() next to vcpu_is_protected()? The pKVM
> host-side series [1] has vcpu_is_protected() checks that are pKVM
> mechanism (the vCPU feature allowlist, CPU_ON against the pKVM
> power-off state, the ONE_REG rejection after the first run), and with
> the wider predicate those have to carry a pKVM-specific name.

Ack.

Suzuki

> Cheers,
> /fuad
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260914113338.159227-1-fuad.tabba@xxxxxxxxx/