Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] target/s390x: Fix SIGILL and SIGFPE psw.addr reporting

[Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> qemu-s390x puts a wrong value into SIGILL's siginfo_t's psw.addr: it
> should be a pointer to the instruction following the illegal
> instruction, but at the moment it is a pointer to the illegal
> instruction itself. This breaks OpenJDK, which relies on this value.
> A similar problem exists for SIGFPE.
>
> Patch 1 fixes the issue, patch 2 adds a test.
>
> v1: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-05/msg06592.html
> v1 -> v2: Use a better buglink (Cornelia), simplify the inline asm
>           magic in the test and add an explanation (David).
>
> v2: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-05/msg06649.html
> v2 -> v3: Fix SIGSEGV handling (found when trying to run valgrind under
>           qemu-user).
>
> v3: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-06/msg00299.html
> v3 -> v4: Fix compiling the test on Ubuntu 20.04 (Jonathan).
>
> v4: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-06/msg05848.html
> v4 -> v5: Greatly simplify the fix (Ulrich).
>
> v5: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-06/msg06244.html
> v5 -> v6: Fix breakpoints (David). Add gdbstub test.
>
> Note: the compare-and-trap SIGFPE issue is being fixed separately.
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-06/msg05690.html
>
> Ilya Leoshkevich (2):
>   target/s390x: Fix SIGILL and SIGFPE psw.addr reporting
>   tests/tcg/s390x: Test SIGILL and SIGSEGV handling
>
>  linux-user/s390x/cpu_loop.c                   |  12 +-
>  tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target               |  18 +-
>  tests/tcg/s390x/gdbstub/test-signals-s390x.py |  76 ++++++++
>  tests/tcg/s390x/signals-s390x.c               | 165 ++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 269 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/gdbstub/test-signals-s390x.py
>  create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/signals-s390x.c

So, I'd like to see this merged, but I'm unsure on what we agreed -- I
thought this would go via linux-user. Do I misremember?