From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42709)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>) id 1abUYI-0001Ui-90
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:48:34 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>) id 1abUYH-0005Ba-AE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 09:48:30 -0500
References: <1456941872-8791-1-git-send-email-afarallax@yandex.ru>
	<56D73CB6.7040702@gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA9gPrmcn3TNUueei1f5V0QMr-Nox9JHEE23EsQxbEO9qQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56D84EB5.30808@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:48:21 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9gPrmcn3TNUueei1f5V0QMr-Nox9JHEE23EsQxbEO9qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Fix translation level on early
 translation faults
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Sergey Sorokin <afarallax@yandex.ru>, qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 03.03.2016 16:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 March 2016 at 19:19, Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 02.03.2016 21:04, Sergey Sorokin wrote:
>>> Qemu reports translation fault on 1st level instead of 0th level in case of
>>> AArch64 address translation if the translation table walk is disabled or
>>> the address is in the gap between the two regions.
>> It's probably not a very clear description in the commit message. IIUC,
>> level 0 fault is reported in case of any fault from TTBR in AArch64 state.
> Yes (though you mean "under an AArch64 translation regime"). Conversely, the
> only fault reported at level 0 under an AArch32 translation regime is
> the AddressSize fault (for bad addresses in TTBR0/1), which we don't
> currently implement.
>
> There's also a code path later in the function that does
>     level = va_size == 64 ? 0 : 1;
>
> but I'm not sure it's worth rearranging that code to avoid the
> duplication of "what level do we report this kind of fault at?".

Right, but actually I think this patch is going to fix the two "goto
do_fault" cases which can happen before this "level = va_size == 64 ? 0
: 1", namely the EDP check and the check for virtual address which is in
the gap between TTBR0 and TTBR1 regions.

Best regards,
Sergey