On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 20:27:44 +0200
Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> The architecture mandates the addresses to be accessed on the first
> indirection level (that is, the data addresses without IDA, and the
> (M)IDAW addresses with (M)IDA) to be checked against an CCW format
> dependent limit maximum address. If a violation is detected, the storage
> access is not to be performed and a channel program check needs to be
> generated. As of today, we fail to do this check.
>
> Let us stick even closer to the architecture specification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> hw/s390x/css.c | 10 ++++++++++
> include/hw/s390x/css.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
> index 6b0cd8861b..2d37a9ddde 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
> @@ -795,6 +795,11 @@ static inline int cds_check_len(CcwDataStream *cds, int
> len)
> return cds->flags & CDS_F_STREAM_BROKEN ? -EINVAL : len;
> }
>
> +static inline bool cds_ccw_addrs_ok(hwaddr addr, int len, bool ccw_fmt1)
cds_cda_limit_ok?
> +{
> + return (addr + len) < (ccw_fmt1 ? (1UL << 31) : (1UL << 24));
> +}
> +
> static int ccw_dstream_rw_noflags(CcwDataStream *cds, void *buff, int len,
> CcwDataStreamOp op)
> {
Looks good.
