Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting

[Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 14:38 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 13:19 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich 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.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> > Ilya Leoshkevich (2):
> >   target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting
> >   tests/tcg/s390x: Test SIGILL handling
> > 
> >  linux-user/s390x/cpu_loop.c     |  6 ++-
> >  target/s390x/excp_helper.c      | 69 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > --
> >  target/s390x/internal.h         |  1 +
> >  tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target |  1 +
> >  tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c        | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  5 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Is there anything I need to do to have this merged?
> 
> Regarding the style checker warning: I could move the function
> declaration to a separate header, but from my perspective this would
> make the test less readable.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ilya

I was just finalizing the similar series for SIGSEGV, when I
realized that the problem that it solves is actually caused by this
one. So please don't merge it yet (in case you were planning to), and
let me send a combined v3.

Best regards,
Ilya