On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 13:46, <shashi.mall...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-07-06 at 10:19 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 04:25, <shashi.mall...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > But the pseudocode for MAPTI does not say anywhere that we should > > be checking the pIntID against any CPU's GICR_PROPBASER field. > > It is checked only by the checks in LPIOutOfRange(), which tests: > > * is it larger than permitted by GICD_TYPER.IDbits > > * is it not in the LPI range and not 1023 > > > > Checking whether the intID is too big and would cause us to index > > off the end of the redistributor's configuration table should be done > > later, only when the ITS actually sends the interrupt to a particular > > redistributor, I think. > > > > (You can't rely on the guest having done the MAPC before the MAPTI; > > and in any case the guest could choose to do a MAPC to a different > > redistributor after it's done the MAPTI.)
> We already have the "intID too big check" in place within the > redistributor processing when ITS sends the interrupt trigger. > "the LPI range and not 1023" is also handled in this function,but for > validating "is it larger than permitted by GICD_TYPER.IDbits",the > source of GICD_TYPER.IDbits is GICR_PROPBASER because we pick up min of > GICR_PROPBASER.IDbits and GICD_TYPER.IDBits. > > If we are to not use gicr_propbaser,then are we good to just accept the > intID value here since we are validating the same during interrupt > processing? You should check the things the pseudocode says you should check. When processing MAPTI, that's GICD_TYPER.IDbits. GICR_PROPBASER.IDbits is not the same thing because the guest can set it to a smaller value. thanks -- PMM
