On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:03:42PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Instead of considering that a sysreg accessor has failed when
> returning false, let's consider that it is *always* successful
> (after all, we won't stand for an incomplete emulation).

That's right!

> 
> The return value now simply indicates whether we should skip
> the instruction (because it has now been emulated), or if we
> should leave the PC alone if the emulation has injected an
> exception.

Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

(I especially enjoy the much cleaner flow of emulate_sys_reg())

> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 49 
> +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index f80a61af5e88..4e5d4eee8cec 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1571,6 +1571,22 @@ int kvm_handle_cp14_load_store(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
> struct kvm_run *run)
>       return 1;
>  }
>  
> +static void perform_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +                        struct sys_reg_params *params,
> +                        const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +     /*
> +      * Not having an accessor means that we have configured a trap
> +      * that we don't know how to handle. This certainly qualifies
> +      * as a gross bug that should be fixed right away.
> +      */
> +     BUG_ON(!r->access);
> +
> +     /* Skip instruction if instructed so */
> +     if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r)))
> +             kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * emulate_cp --  tries to match a sys_reg access in a handling table, and
>   *                call the corresponding trap handler.
> @@ -1594,20 +1610,8 @@ static int emulate_cp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>       r = find_reg(params, table, num);
>  
>       if (r) {
> -             /*
> -              * Not having an accessor means that we have
> -              * configured a trap that we don't know how to
> -              * handle. This certainly qualifies as a gross bug
> -              * that should be fixed right away.
> -              */
> -             BUG_ON(!r->access);
> -
> -             if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r))) {
> -                     /* Skip instruction, since it was emulated */
> -                     kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> -                     /* Handled */
> -                     return 0;
> -             }
> +             perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
> +             return 0;
>       }
>  
>       /* Not handled */
> @@ -1777,26 +1781,13 @@ static int emulate_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>               r = find_reg(params, sys_reg_descs, ARRAY_SIZE(sys_reg_descs));
>  
>       if (likely(r)) {
> -             /*
> -              * Not having an accessor means that we have
> -              * configured a trap that we don't know how to
> -              * handle. This certainly qualifies as a gross bug
> -              * that should be fixed right away.
> -              */
> -             BUG_ON(!r->access);
> -
> -             if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r))) {
> -                     /* Skip instruction, since it was emulated */
> -                     kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> -                     return 1;
> -             }
> -             /* If access function fails, it should complain. */
> +             perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
>       } else {
>               kvm_err("Unsupported guest sys_reg access at: %lx\n",
>                       *vcpu_pc(vcpu));
>               print_sys_reg_instr(params);
> +             kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
>       }
> -     kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
>       return 1;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.11.0
> 
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to