qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] user-exec.c: Set is_write correctly in the ARM


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] user-exec.c: Set is_write correctly in the ARM cpu_signal_handler()
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:59:04 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6

Am 04.06.2013 15:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> In the ARM implementation of cpu_signal_handler(), set is_write
> correctly using the FSR value which the kernel passes us in the
> error_code field of uc_mcontext. Since the WnR bit of the FSR was
> only introduced in ARMv6, this means that v5 cores will continue
> to behave as before this patch, but they are not really supported
> as hosts for linux-user mode anyway since they do not have the
> modern behaviour for unaligned accesses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
> ---
> Without this linux-user won't work very well. In particular after
> fork() bash will segfault, with this in the QEMU_STRACE output
> immediately preceding:
>  sigreturn(18,4390912,1082130608,0,0,0) = -1 errno=255 (Unknown error 255)
> at least for PPC and MIPSEL guests.
> 
>  user-exec.c |    8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/user-exec.c b/user-exec.c
> index 71bd6c5..336ac70 100644
> --- a/user-exec.c
> +++ b/user-exec.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>  #include "cpu.h"
>  #include "disas/disas.h"
>  #include "tcg.h"
> +#include "qemu/bitops.h"
>  
>  #undef EAX
>  #undef ECX
> @@ -441,8 +442,11 @@ int cpu_signal_handler(int host_signum, void *pinfo,
>  #else
>      pc = uc->uc_mcontext.arm_pc;
>  #endif
> -    /* XXX: compute is_write */
> -    is_write = 0;
> +
> +    /* error_code is the FSR value, in which bit 11 is WnR (assuming a v6 or
> +     * later processor; on v5 we will always report this as a read).
> +     */
> +    is_write = extract32(uc->uc_mcontext.error_code, 11, 1);

You seem to be relying on v5 and earlier reading zero here - wondering
if that is true for all implementations (OMAP, PXA, etc.)? Safer and
closer to the comment might be an explicit check for v6+ if that were
possible.

Cheers,
Andreas

>      return handle_cpu_signal(pc, (unsigned long)info->si_addr,
>                               is_write,
>                               &uc->uc_sigmask, puc);

-- 
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]