From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6761EC47077 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPlNZ-0008Hq-BI; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:29:29 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPlNX-0008H6-7s; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:29:27 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPlNV-0000Ws-6t; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:29:26 -0500 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TDtCJ1Rblz686Vq; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:26:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 241411400CF; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 23:29:21 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:29:20 +0000 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:29:19 +0000 To: Peter Maydell CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/35] target/arm: Report VNCR_EL2 based faults correctly Message-ID: <20240116152919.00001571@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20231218113305.2511480-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20231218113305.2511480-28-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <20240116130940.00002523@Huawei.com> <20240116145051.000004f7@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:59:15 +0000 Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 14:50, Jonathan Cameron > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:20:33 +0000 > > Peter Maydell wrote: > > > Bisecting to this patch is a bit weird because at this point > > > in the series emulation of FEAT_NV2 should be disabled and > > > the code being added should never be used. You could put > > > an assert(0) into the code in translate-a64.c before the > > > call to syn_data_abort_vncr() and in arm_deliver_fault() > > > assert(!is_vncr) to confirm that we're not somehow getting > > > into this code for some non-FEAT_NV2 situation, I guess. > > > > Not that, but surprisingly is_vncr == true. > > in arm_deliver_fault() > > > > Frigging that to be false gets me up and running. I'll see > > if I can figure out why it is set. > > I don't know if this is the cause, but looking again at the > line that sets is_vncr I see at least one obvious bug: > > bool is_vncr = (mmu_idx != MMU_INST_FETCH) && > (env->exception.syndrome & ARM_EL_VNCR); > > is testing the wrong variable -- the first part > of the condition should be "access_type != MMU_INST_FETCH". > > If you fix that does the failure go away ? Ah - indeed that fixes it. I guess that makes sense. Presumably the bit is used for something else for instruction fetches. Thanks for your quick help! Jonathan > > Yay for C and its very sloppy typing :-/ > > -- PMM