On Thu, 2026-10-22 at 10:21 -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/22/2026 3:00 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > Daniel Henrique Barboza <[email protected]> writes:
> > 
> > > Maruks reported in [1] a problem with QMP introspection with
> 
> Just now noticed the typo :D
> 
> 
> Alistair, can you fix it in-tree or should I re-send?  Thanks,

Fixed it on my side

Alistair

> 
> Daniel
> 
> > > qemu-system-riscv64 that happens after querying a profile CPU. 
> > > QEMU
> > > crashes hitting an abort during satp_mode logic that, somehow, is
> > > being
> > > triggered via profile code.
> > > 
> > > For every profile CPU that goes through init we're setting an
> > > 'enabled'
> > > flag in the static RISCVProfile object.  This sounded like an
> > > okay idea
> > > back when profiles were introduced, but now we've realized that
> > > QMP will
> > > querying CPUs without exiting the QEMU process while also going
> > > multiple
> > > times through cpu_init() and friends.  The result is that we're
> > > in a
> > > situation where we have runtime information being stored in
> > > static arrays
> > > that persists between CPU definitions being introspected.
> > > 
> > > A proper fix is to get rid of profile->enabled and turn profiles
> > > into
> > > cpu->cfg flags like we do with every other extension. 
> > > Unfortunately
> > > we've been using profile->enabled for lots of things and a
> > > redesign
> > > would be in order, one which I'm not comfortable doing right now
> > > - we're
> > > too close to the QEMU 11.2 code freeze for such a change.
> > > 
> > > For now let's silver tape a fix in cpu_init() to reset profile-
> > > >enabled
> > > for all available profiles.  We'll do a proper redesign in the
> > > next
> > > release cycle.
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Henrique Barboza
> > > <[email protected]>
> > 
> > That was quick, thank you!
> > 
> > Tested-by: Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
> > 
> 

Reply via email to