On 29.05.2017 14:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We have to make the address in the old PSW point at the next
> instruction, as addressing exceptions are suppressing and not
> nullifying.
According to "Figure 6-1. Interruption Action" in the PoP, they could
also be terminating ... but anyway, not nullifying, so the PSW should be
increased afterwards. So:
Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
> I assume that there are a lot of other broken cases (as most instructions
> we care about are suppressing) - all trigger_pgm_exception() specifying
> and explicit number or ILEN_LATER look suspicious, however this is another
> story that might require bigger changes (and I have to understand when
> the address might already have been incremented first).
>
> This is needed to make an upcoming kvm-unit-test work.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
> ---
> target/s390x/helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/s390x/helper.c b/target/s390x/helper.c
> index 9978490..c09e391 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/helper.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/helper.c
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ int s390_cpu_handle_mmu_fault(CPUState *cs, vaddr
> orig_vaddr,
> if (raddr > ram_size) {
> DPRINTF("%s: raddr %" PRIx64 " > ram_size %" PRIx64 "\n", __func__,
> (uint64_t)raddr, (uint64_t)ram_size);
> - trigger_pgm_exception(env, PGM_ADDRESSING, ILEN_LATER);
> + trigger_pgm_exception(env, PGM_ADDRESSING, ILEN_LATER_INC);
> return 1;
> }
>
>
