From: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
To: Ricky Zhou <ricky@rzhou.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, eduardo@habkost.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] target/i386: Raise #GP on unaligned m128 accesses when required.
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:54:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fda2702b-5bf2-91c4-3a96-5a51e9438e20@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFoVXjgHBPs8XhOqLN9BpD1-GN7Amsor5o660WOmBdQ54dxW5w@mail.gmail.com>
On 8/29/22 13:46, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look at this - did you see the bit in the cover
> letter where I discuss doing this via alignment requirements on the
> memory operation? My logic was that the memop alignment checks seem to
> be more oriented towards triggering #AC exceptions (even though this is
> not currently implemented),
I missed that in the cover. However... implementing #AC is pretty hypothetical. It's not
something that I've ever seen used, and not something that anyone has asked for.
> One slightly more involved way to use alignment on the MemOp could be to
> arrange to pass the problematic MemOp to do_unaligned_access and
> helper_unaligned_{ld,st}. Then we could allow CPUs to handle
> misalignment of different MemOps differently (e.g. raise #GP/SIGSEGV for
> certain ops and #AC/SIGBUS for others). For this change to x86, we could
> maybe get away with making MO_ALIGN_16 and above trigger #GP/SIGSEGV and
> everything else trigger #AC/SIGBUS. If that's a little hacky, we could
> instead add some dedicated bits to MemOp that distinguish different
> types of unaligned accesses.
There's another related problem that actually has gotten a bug report in the past: when
the form of the address should raise #SS instead of #GP in system mode.
My initial thought was to record information about "the" memory access in the per-insn
unwind info, until I realized that there are insns with multiple memory operations
requiring different treatment. E.g. "push (%rax)", where the read might raise #GP and the
write might raise #SS. So I think we'd need to encode #GP vs #SS into the mmu_idx used
(e.g. in the lsb).
However, I don't think there are any similar situations of multiple memory types affecting
SSE, so #AC vs #GP could in fact be encoded into the per-insn unwind info.
As for SIGBUS vs SIGSEGV for SSE and user-only, you only need implement the
x86_cpu_ops.record_sigbus hook. C.f. the s390x version which raises PGM_SPECIFICATION ->
SIGILL for unaligned atomic operations.
r~
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-29 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-29 14:23 [PATCH 0/1] target/i386: Raise #GP on unaligned m128 accesses when required Ricky Zhou
2022-08-29 14:23 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Ricky Zhou
2022-08-29 16:45 ` Richard Henderson
2022-08-29 20:46 ` Ricky Zhou
2022-08-29 22:54 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fda2702b-5bf2-91c4-3a96-5a51e9438e20@linaro.org \
--to=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=ricky@rzhou.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).