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=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 A35B6C433B4 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:34:48 +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 F07A56117A for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:34:47 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F07A56117A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:47412 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZvxG-0004si-Nv for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:34:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZvrS-0002A9-Q1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:28:52 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:48754) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lZvrL-00080b-Qd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:28:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619184514; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2fImo1UBSn7MQHkyOHGDcoBJTKrDdZ1VVC6oYL9UIFU=; b=QI2tWq469jqI2LoBMktWlGrK3zkoPL9gvO/PmG6+POOf76o4heQV4/BbOq9OUSeN6lnV2T VeDAZ6sToMUjNhjFZJenOILp3zF346B8yBSMNMGNTpmXPELw4UcDFD5jxi3I4HWLzLVnWe 4AFpB4MPxgmrQvKTmGDJGcZ5aCl29sc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-471-pdr-RoFbNX2BFHGjqFFOKg-1; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:28:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: pdr-RoFbNX2BFHGjqFFOKg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74368107ACCA; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (ovpn-115-143.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.143]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE7760613; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability To: Peter Maydell , Cornelia Huck References: <20210422154427.13038-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <20210423142209.03032dc5.cohuck@redhat.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=thuth@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=thuth@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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: Fam Zheng , "Daniel P. Berrange" , David Hildenbrand , Richard Henderson , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , QEMU Developers , "open list:S390 general arch..." , Stefan Hajnoczi , Cleber Rosa , Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Aurelien Jarno , Laurent Vivier Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100 >> Alex Bennée wrote: >> >>> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only >>> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are >>> executing signal return code on signal stacks. >>> >>> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit") >>> Found-by: Richard Henderson >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée >>> Cc: Cornelia Huck >>> Cc: Thomas Huth >>> Cc: David Hildenbrand >>> Cc: Laurent Vivier >>> --- >>> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c >>> index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644 >>> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c >>> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c >>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size, >>> >>> #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) >>> flags = page_get_flags(addr); >>> - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) { >>> + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) { >>> env->__excp_addr = addr; >>> flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING; >>> if (nonfault) { >> >> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but >> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix. > > What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend > hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes > just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one > does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent > crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of > annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users > later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5. IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so the damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest to include it in a rc5. Thomas