On 10/10/24 12:29, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/9/24 17:10, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
+static bool tlbtree_hit(CPUState *cpu, int mmu_idx,
+ MMUAccessType access_type, vaddr addr)
{
- size_t vidx;
+ CPUTLBDesc *desc = &cpu->neg.tlb.d[mmu_idx];
+ CPUTLBDescFast *fast = &cpu->neg.tlb.f[mmu_idx];
+ CPUTLBEntryTree *node;
+ size_t index;
assert_cpu_is_self(cpu);
- for (vidx = 0; vidx < CPU_VTLB_SIZE; ++vidx) {
- CPUTLBEntry *vtlb = &cpu->neg.tlb.d[mmu_idx].vtable[vidx];
- uint64_t cmp = tlb_read_idx(vtlb, access_type);
-
- if (cmp == page) {
...
+ if (!tlb_hit(tlb_read_idx(&node->copy, access_type), addr)) {
+ /* This access is not permitted. */
+ return false;
+ }
This is not something we were checking before. If this is an addition, maybe it
would be
better to split this out of this commit. Or maybe I missed a step in previous
commits :)
It's there, with the comparison and page mask, but I agree it's not obvious.
r~
Subtle indeed, you don't expect & TARGET_PAGE_MASK to imply that
protection is checked, even if that makes sense once said.
