4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>

commit 708e75a3ee750dce1072134e630d66c4e6eaf63c upstream.

If kvmppc_handle_exit_pr() calls kvmppc_emulate_instruction() to emulate
one instruction (in the BOOK3S_INTERRUPT_H_EMUL_ASSIST case), it calls
kvmppc_core_queue_program() afterwards if kvmppc_emulate_instruction()
returned EMULATE_FAIL, so the guest gets an program interrupt for the
illegal opcode.
However, the kvmppc_emulate_instruction() also tried to inject a
program exception for this already, so the program interrupt gets
injected twice and the return address in srr0 gets destroyed.
All other callers of kvmppc_emulate_instruction() are also injecting
a program interrupt, and since the callers have the right knowledge
about the srr1 flags that should be used, it is the function
kvmppc_emulate_instruction() that should _not_ inject program
interrupts, so remove the kvmppc_core_queue_program() here.

This fixes the issue discovered by Laurent Vivier with kvm-unit-tests
where the logs are filled with these messages when the test tries
to execute an illegal instruction:

     Couldn't emulate instruction 0x00000000 (op 0 xop 0)
     kvmppc_handle_exit_pr: emulation at 700 failed (00000000)

Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
Tested-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <pau...@ozlabs.org>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.sem...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/emulate.c
@@ -302,7 +302,6 @@ int kvmppc_emulate_instruction(struct kv
                        advance = 0;
                        printk(KERN_ERR "Couldn't emulate instruction 0x%08x "
                               "(op %d xop %d)\n", inst, get_op(inst), 
get_xop(inst));
-                       kvmppc_core_queue_program(vcpu, 0);
                }
        }
 


Reply via email to