Previously, "info mem" considered and displayed only the last-level
protection bits for a memory range, which doesn't accurrately
represent the protection of that range. Now it shows the combined
protection.
Signed-off-by: Austin Clements <amdra...@mit.edu>
---
monitor.c | 10 +++++++---
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
index f8ba0ef..cd4e749 100644
--- a/monitor.c
+++ b/monitor.c
@@ -2246,7 +2246,8 @@ static void mem_info_32(Monitor *mon, CPUState *env)
pte = le32_to_cpu(pte);
end = (l1 << 22) + (l2 << 12);
if (pte & PG_PRESENT_MASK) {
- prot = pte & (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK |
PG_PRESENT_MASK);
+ prot = pte & pde &
+ (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK | PG_PRESENT_MASK);
} else {
prot = 0;
}
@@ -2295,8 +2296,8 @@ static void mem_info_pae32(Monitor *mon, CPUState *env)
pte = le64_to_cpu(pte);
end = (l1 << 30) + (l2 << 21) + (l3 << 12);
if (pte & PG_PRESENT_MASK) {
- prot = pte & (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK |
- PG_PRESENT_MASK);
+ prot = pte & pde & (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK |
+ PG_PRESENT_MASK);
} else {
prot = 0;
}
@@ -2343,6 +2344,7 @@ static void mem_info_64(Monitor *mon, CPUState *env)
if (pdpe & PG_PSE_MASK) {
prot = pdpe & (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK |
PG_PRESENT_MASK);
+ prot &= pml4e;
mem_print(mon, &start, &last_prot, end, prot);
} else {
pd_addr = pdpe & 0x3fffffffff000ULL;
@@ -2354,6 +2356,7 @@ static void mem_info_64(Monitor *mon, CPUState *env)
if (pde & PG_PSE_MASK) {
prot = pde & (PG_USER_MASK | PG_RW_MASK |
PG_PRESENT_MASK);
+ prot &= pml4e & pdpe;
mem_print(mon, &start, &last_prot, end,
prot);
} else {
pt_addr = pde & 0x3fffffffff000ULL;
@@ -2367,6 +2370,7 @@ static void mem_info_64(Monitor *mon, CPUState *env)
if (pte & PG_PRESENT_MASK) {
prot = pte & (PG_USER_MASK |
PG_RW_MASK |
PG_PRESENT_MASK);
+ prot &= pml4e & pdpe & pde;
} else {
prot = 0;
}
--
1.7.5.4
