)]}'
{
  "commit": "6b980f8285db2f4eb480f425e6376d0cce186cfa",
  "tree": "87fe38d3cb6a5729abf6e85d0efe79c1fea1d7f0",
  "parents": [
    "6fadecaeb8483908b27ea4935b044895c93fc7fd"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Mark Brown",
    "email": "broonie@kernel.org",
    "time": "Tue Jun 04 16:04:08 2024 +0100"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Mark Brown",
    "email": "broonie@kernel.org",
    "time": "Tue Feb 11 13:02:39 2025 +0000"
  },
  "message": "KVM: arm64: Fix confusion in documentation for pKVM SME assert\n\nAs raised in the review comments for the original patch the assert and\ncomment added in afb91f5f8ad7 (\"KVM: arm64: Ensure that SME controls are\ndisabled in protected mode\") are bogus. The comments says that we check\nthat we do not have SME enabled for a pKVM guest but the assert actually\nchecks to see if the host has anything set in SVCR which is unrelated to\nthe guest features or state, regardless of if those guests are protected\nor not. This check is also made in the hypervisor, it will refuse to run\na guest if the check fails, so it appears that the assert here is\nintended to improve diagnostics.\n\nUpdate the comment to reflect the check in the code, and to clarify that\nwe do actually enforce this in the hypervisor. While we\u0027re here also\nupdate to use a WARN_ON_ONCE() to avoid log spam if this triggers.\n\nFixes: afb91f5f8ad7 (\"KVM: arm64: Ensure that SME controls are disabled in protected mode\")\nReviewed-by: Fuad Tabba \u003ctabba@google.com\u003e\nSigned-off-by: Mark Brown \u003cbroonie@kernel.org\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "4d3d1a2eb157047b4b2488e9c4ffaabc6f5a0818",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c",
      "new_id": "e37e53883c357093ff4455f5afdaec90e662d744",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c"
    }
  ]
}