On 02.10.19 21:34, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/2/19 9:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> There is still the special case of EXECUTE of MVCL, which I suspect must have >> some failure mode that we're not considering -- the setting and clearing of >> ex_value can't help. I have a suspicion that we need to special case that >> within helper_ex, just so that ex_value doesn't enter into it. > > I had a walk and a think. I now believe that we're ok: > > (1) TB with EXECUTE runs, at address Ae > > - env->psw_addr stored with Ae. > - helper_ex() runs, memory address Am computed > from D2a(X2a,B2a) or from psw.addr+RI2. > - env->ex_value stored with memory value modified by R1a > > (2) TB of executee runs, > > - env->ex_value stored with 0. > - helper_mvcl() runs, using and updating R1b, R1b+1, R2b, R2b+1. > > (3a) helper_mvcl() completes, > > - TB of executee continues, psw.addr += ilen. > - Next instruction is the one following EXECUTE.
Right, and whenever we inject an interrupt (e.g., access exception or an asynchronous one), we have to use addr=ilen of EXECUTE, not of the execute target. And that is guaranteed to reside in env->psw_addr/rewind info > > (3b) helper_mvcl() exits to main loop, > > - cpu_loop_exit_restore() unwinds psw.addr = Ae. > - Next instruction is the EXECUTE itself... > - goto 1. Sounds about right to me. Thanks for verifying. > > If we can agree that the result is undefined if registers R1a, X2a, B2a > overlap > R1b, R1b+1, R2b, R2b+1, or if the memory address Am is modified by the > interrupted MVCL, then we're ok. So the Programming Note 5. for EXECUTE says: When an interruptible instruction is made the tar- get of an execute-type instruction, the program normally should not designate any register updated by the interruptible instruction as the R1, X2, or B2 register for EXECUTE or R1 register for EXECUTE RELATIVE LONG. Otherwise, on resumption of execution after an interruption, or if the instruction is refetched without an interrup- tion, the updated values of these registers will be used in the execution of the execute-type instruc- tion. Similarly, the program should normally not let the destination field in storage of an interrupt- ible instruction include the location of an execute- type instruction, since the new contents of the location may be interpreted when resuming exe- cution. So, if I read correctly - The updated register content *will* be used - The updated memory content *may* be used However, also "the program normally should not"/"the program should normally not" which to me sounds like "just don't do it", in which case we are fine. So shall we leave this patch as-is (adding a summary of what you explained to the description) or shall we somehow factor out the TCG-internal-thingy check? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
