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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA48C433E0 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:26:22 +0000 (UTC) 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 mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29C264FBA for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:26:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C29C264FBA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:34978 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKQ0p-000790-7J for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:26:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKPzW-0005qK-0e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:24:58 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]:35397) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lKPzS-00012E-GH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:24:57 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id u6so16791224oic.2 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:24:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s3vmQb3Efpoif6R05/Yeq9FvioH8dm93x4wDI6v1mCM=; b=mOxkZjMyJ7j8dIqeW06Ktz8lkt61t2z+MKOECedIalxPnnnwCKBjtxkj7OWcA+/ClQ B3cSChCLn1Y+st7NHbntgUwsVWtEc8JtSaSIWQEet2REQcjMwA7XQzWdy4Gxpb981YP/ HsrKWmD7z7Gcl1FO8qWtsQuSsfYy31lMlWiWQARMNf9kGR6HYR9b/Ds70CwvjyJoJzdN bNI0VwrGh5MTUZ4vva1UMR/mWVYUeo6uKhF1Vqs0NrBysYZrR1ABxoHAtACHn2K1JAEe mtvPH3qHwZGcWUm/IHY84o98WnUGDVldk7xvd7bq+TqKULgCPfScGD9oeuYyrcUbVCXP RHSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=s3vmQb3Efpoif6R05/Yeq9FvioH8dm93x4wDI6v1mCM=; b=NvzUYi99XJeJWIvhFcwAGW2j03JV+hmYhoo6JEojpz5u5+C2/kPCWErns01lTFduin YKXY4eJ3k7yV7xYebAym88JRKd45B2haN9okQr7JQzs/b9ti1cFCw7L7GHVX6UMfOQ/V MU1kJIOUe8H0oAB6A3TSg4bx0yWf73xVLpZntU3A597wDvn9UVTQDdkqdL8vIwJ9zweP +f1ZrrU4TYGHaE+VeqSN8ZzGW0MQmfIax30I9Z8tGKKjaxUmIY9iXgZccVtXRaszZfCI KVhvwMTnmI2LTudjKN7iwcWxlsMajRcPz5Qsl/pFAf9U6+3dBpqGK4FT508hEajvup7l n7YA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530n12XdEz4DqyJivgNZ2sTe59/set9estUTWA8S78DqMhIpS6sR UbEessxhXrDH9nE70g4dkRmArg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyd7d+ZbJgupYy7aOVfBEtrj3yTKTc8ZGQYsQrKr9UR9wnzrNiIcUwifco4fig3s3eULzXVbg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:2d0:: with SMTP id a16mr7188991oid.83.1615487093278; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:24:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.43] (fixed-187-189-51-144.totalplay.net. [187.189.51.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y194sm686234ooa.19.2021.03.11.10.24.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:24:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit To: David Hildenbrand , qemu-devel@nongnu.org References: <20210311161747.129834-1-david@redhat.com> <20210311161747.129834-2-david@redhat.com> <39285cf8-2214-2257-679d-231e0c6a0652@linaro.org> <5b929a10-4561-d596-b43b-33ca4022ea54@redhat.com> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <94081af4-2d90-4e6d-10f3-63c58a9b326d@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:24:50 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5b929a10-4561-d596-b43b-33ca4022ea54@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::230; envelope-from=richard.henderson@linaro.org; helo=mail-oi1-x230.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Cornelia Huck , Thomas Huth Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 3/11/21 12:16 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.03.21 18:52, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 3/11/21 10:17 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) >>> +    /* >>> +     * For !CONFIG_USER_ONLY, we cannot rely on TLB_INVALID_MASK or >>> haddr==NULL >>> +     * to detect if there was an exception during tlb_fill(). >>> +     */ >>> +    env->tlb_fill_exc = 0; >>> +#endif >>> +    flags = probe_access_flags(env, vaddr1, access_type, mmu_idx, >>> +                               nofault, &haddr1, ra); >>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) >>> +    if (env->tlb_fill_exc) { >>> +        return env->tlb_fill_exc; >>> +    } >>> +#else >>> +    if (!haddr1) { >>> +        env->__excp_addr = vaddr1; >>> +        return PGM_ADDRESSING; >>> +    } >>> +#endif >> >> The assumption of PGM_ADDRESSING is incorrect here -- it could still be >> PGM_PROTECTION, depending on how the page is mapped. >> > > Interesting, I was only looking at the s390x tlb_fill() implementation. But I > assume these checks are performed in common code. Actually, no. It's a common bug in our linux-user targets, where we don't fill in the SIGSEGV si_code correctly. See e.g. 8db94ab4e5d. > Thanks, maybe I can factor that out in a nice way. I guess we could do the > access via probe_access_flags() and only on error do the page_get_flags()? Yes, we could do that. It's certainly better for !nofault, which is the common-case user of this function. r~