Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu softmmu_template.h

["andrzej zaborowski" <balrogg@gmail.com>]

On 17/11/2007, J. Mayer <l_indien@magic.fr> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 11:14 +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> > On 17/11/2007, J. Mayer <l_indien@magic.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 09:53 +0000, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote:
> > > > CVSROOT:      /sources/qemu
> > > > Module name:  qemu
> > > > Changes by:   Andrzej Zaborowski <balrog>     07/11/17 09:53:42
> > > >
> > > > Modified files:
> > > >       .              : softmmu_template.h
> > > >
> > > > Log message:
> > > >       Check permissions for the last byte first in unaligned slow_st accesses (patch from TeLeMan).
> > > >
> > > > CVSWeb URLs:
> > > > http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/qemu/softmmu_template.h?cvsroot=qemu&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
> > > >
> > >
> > > Has it been checked that it's legal for all architectures and cannot
> > > have any nasty side effect to do accesses in the reverse order ? Real
> > > hardware do not ever seem to do this...
> >
> > For real hardware the store is a single operation.
>
> For PowerPC, at least, only aligned stores are defined as atomic. It's
> absolutely legal for an implementation to split all non-atomic accesses
> into smaller aligned accesses. And I guess it is the same for all
> architecture that can do unaligned accesses.
>
> > Logically it shouldn't have any side effects, but if it does then it
> > would rather mean that other code for that architecture is (also)
> > broken, I believe.
> >
> > I've only tested ARM, mips, x86 and x86_64 before committing, so
> > please test. I figured that the patch won't get any comments on the
> > mailing list if it isn't merged.
>
> I don't think it's so easy to test because it may be very  hard to
> trigger the cases that would have side effects, which are target
> dependent. I then am very curious to know how you did check that there
> is no problem with this patch....

Well, for ARM, x86 and x86_64 I only checked that unaligned accesses
still work, i.e. that I haven't made an obvious typo. I haven't tested
cross-page accesses with the access to the second page being invalid,
I also don't know how the specifications for other architectures
define the effect of such accesses, so maybe I shouldn't have
committed this, but I assumed a common sense in the design of cpu
archs, meaning that in the example given by TeLeMan the addition is
not performed two times on some bytes.
Regards