On 03.03.2016 17:55, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 14:48, Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03.03.2016 16:49, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 2 March 2016 at 19:19, Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 02.03.2016 21:04, Sergey Sorokin wrote: >>>>> Qemu reports translation fault on 1st level instead of 0th level in case >>>>> of >>>>> AArch64 address translation if the translation table walk is disabled or >>>>> the address is in the gap between the two regions. >>>> It's probably not a very clear description in the commit message. IIUC, >>>> level 0 fault is reported in case of any fault from TTBR in AArch64 state. >>> Yes (though you mean "under an AArch64 translation regime"). Conversely, the >>> only fault reported at level 0 under an AArch32 translation regime is >>> the AddressSize fault (for bad addresses in TTBR0/1), which we don't >>> currently implement. >>> >>> There's also a code path later in the function that does >>> level = va_size == 64 ? 0 : 1; >>> >>> but I'm not sure it's worth rearranging that code to avoid the >>> duplication of "what level do we report this kind of fault at?". >> Right, but actually I think this patch is going to fix the two "goto >> do_fault" cases which can happen before this "level = va_size == 64 ? 0 >> : 1", namely the EDP check and the check for virtual address which is in >> the gap between TTBR0 and TTBR1 regions. > Yes, this patch is definitely fixing a bug; I'm just mentioning that other > code path because it seems to be the result of previously fixing the bug > for a particular special case... > >
Ah, right, I think I understand you :) So we'd better remove these lines: /* AArch64 reports these as level 0 faults. * AArch32 reports these as level 1 faults. */ level = va_size == 64 ? 0 : 1; fault_type = translation_fault; Kind regards, Sergey