On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:12 PM Alistair Francis <alistai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:33 PM Atish Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > > Coverity complained about the possible out-of-bounds access with > > counter_virt/counter_virt_prev because these two arrays are > > accessed with privilege mode. However, these two arrays are accessed > > only when virt is enabled. Thus, the privilege mode can't be M mode. > > > > Add the asserts anyways to detect any wrong usage of these arrays > > in the future. > > > > Suggested-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <ati...@rivosinc.com> > > Fixes: Coverity CID 1558459 > Fixes: Coverity CID 1558462 > > > --- > > The lore discussion can be found here > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHBxVyGQHBobpf71o4Qp51iQGXKBh0Ajup=e_a95xdLF==v...@mail.gmail.com/ > > --- > > target/riscv/pmu.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/target/riscv/pmu.c b/target/riscv/pmu.c > > index 3cc0b3648cad..e05ab067d2f2 100644 > > --- a/target/riscv/pmu.c > > +++ b/target/riscv/pmu.c > > @@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ static void riscv_pmu_icount_update_priv(CPURISCVState > > *env, > > } > > > > if (env->virt_enabled) { > > + g_assert(env->priv <= PRV_S); > > Don't we need this assert for !env->virt_enabled as well? >
For that case, it uses counter and counter_prev which is array size of 4. The assert was in the other case just to avoid wrong invocation in the future with PRV_M while the array size is 2. > Alistair
