Re: [PATCH v19 03/14] KVM: arm64: Manage GCS access and registers for guests

On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 03:07:14PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 11:16:59AM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2026 at 05:46:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > This is just because there isn't a preexisting ctxt_has_tcrx() check
> > > already there, FEAT_GCS architecturally depends on FEAT_TCRX and there
> > > was a request to make this explicit in the code to try to optimise
> > > things a bit.  The compiler should skip over both blocks at once if TCRX
> > > isn't there rather than having two separate tests or static branches.  I
> > > didn't add new checks where there were none since I expect that to be
> > > unhelpful for code generation, you'd get the reverse situation and emit
> > > two checks.
> 
> > Humm, but then why saving GCSPR_EL2 does not depend on TCRX/E2H? Or maybe a 
> > better question, why are not GCSPR_EL2 and GCSCR_EL2 saved in the same 'if' 
> > clause under ctxt_has_tcrx() (and E2H set), if they are restored in the 
> > same 'if' clause?
> 
> > As you mentioned, GCS depends on TCRX, so it should be fine, but just by 
> > reading the code I see:
> > - GCSCR_EL2 :
> > 	Save if 	GCS=1, TCRX=1, E2H=1
> > 	Restore if 	GCS=1, TCRX=1
> > - GCSPR_EL2 :
> > 	Save if 	GCS=1,
> > 	Restore if	GCS=1, TCRX=1
> 
> > Which looks kind of confusing for the as a first time reader.
> 
> > Does it make sense?
> 
> I agree that the current situation is a bit hard to follow, I'd actually
> originally written things without the explict dependency because of that
> but Marc wanted the optimisation.

Well, I am not against the explicit dependency thing, it just looks odd 
to me that some save/restore have a dependency and it's counterpart does 
not. As well as the dependencies for both registers being different.

>  There's similar things with other
> registers in the current code (eg, the PIE and POE registers are in the
> same situaton as GCSCR_EL2).  One thing I did miss here is some nesting
> inside the PIE checks for EL2, I'll update for that.
> 

Awesome!

> I think what would help here would be to move to generating more of the
> save/restore sequences rather than open coding them, we could have lists
> of registers and then use data about the feature dependencies that the
> architecture has (hopefully it's already in the MRS, I didn't check) to
> generate these optimised feature checks rather than having to open code
> them.  Possibly even list features and generate some of the register
> lists, though that would need far more special case handling and it's
> *much* less clear if there could be a benefit.

Yeah, that would automatize the feature dependency for register loading, 
but maybe code would not be that clear on how it works? I have questionable 
taste, though.

Thanks!
Leo