On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:34:21 +0200 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 09/20/2017 10:06 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > 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? > > > > I use cda to point to the 2 level in case of IDA. This is about > level 1 (addressed by the ccw directly). That's why I used ccw_addrs > but if you think cds_cda_limit_ok is better I can live with that. I don't care that much, tbh. > > We could also think about renaming cds->cda. Btw what does cda stand > for (channel data address is my guess)? Yes, cda should stand for 'channel data address'. Its usage in cds->cda is probably the source of this minor confusion. But, as said, I don't really care that much; so unless one of the other folks has a strong opinion, feel free to leave as-is.
