From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from az33egw02.freescale.net (az33egw02.freescale.net [192.88.158.103]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B01467B4C for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:06:36 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83a359bdf2c4d4902f58e6788c37811a@embeddededge.com> References: <83a359bdf2c4d4902f58e6788c37811a@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <7f0a378a4f3b17a9db01773fcca5fafd@freescale.com> From: Kumar Gala Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:06:19 -0500 To: "Dan Malek" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: Fix alignment exception checking on load/store multiple instructions List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Apr 12, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Dan Malek wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > The handling of misaligned load/store multiplies did not check to = see > > if > > the address were ok to access before __{get,put}_user(). > > I think we should also take the opportunity to fix up the lawrx > case and look for other reserved/conditional instructions > that may slip through.=A0 Since these are atomic operations, we > can't emulate them.=A0 According to the PEM, an alignment fault > on these is a fatal programming error. When you say "fix up" I assume you mean lwarx should return 0. It=20 appears that stwcx. is already doing that. Can't think of any other=20 cases that need fixing. - kumar