On 01.03.2018 14:53, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 01.03.2018 13:08, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's also put the 31-bit hack in front of the REAL MMU, otherwise right
>> now we get errors when loading a PSW where the highest bit is set (e.g.
>> via s390-netboot.img). The highest bit is not masked away, therefore we
>> inject addressing exceptions into the guest.
>>
>> The proper fix will later be to do all address wrapping before accessing
>> the MMU - so we won't get any "wrong" entries in there (which makes
>> flushing also easier). But that will require more work (wrapping in
>> load_psw, wrapping when incrementing the PC, wrapping every memory
>> access).
>>
>> This fixes the tests/pxe-test test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> target/s390x/excp_helper.c | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/s390x/excp_helper.c b/target/s390x/excp_helper.c
>> index 411051edc3..dfee221111 100644
>> --- a/target/s390x/excp_helper.c
>> +++ b/target/s390x/excp_helper.c
>> @@ -107,6 +107,10 @@ int s390_cpu_handle_mmu_fault(CPUState *cs, vaddr
>> orig_vaddr, int size,
>> return 1;
>> }
>> } else if (mmu_idx == MMU_REAL_IDX) {
>> + /* 31-Bit mode */
>> + if (!(env->psw.mask & PSW_MASK_64)) {
>> + vaddr &= 0x7fffffff;
>> + }
>
> Since the preceeding if-statement has exactly the same check, I think
> you could also merge the two checks by putting that in front of the
> if-statement instead?
>
> Apart from that, patch looks good to me.
>
Yes, but as it is already submitted in a pull request I guess we'll
leave it that way.
Want to get rid off all that hacky stuff soon (once I have some spare
time ...)
Thanks!
> Thomas
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
