On 22/04/16 19:51, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-04-22 18:47, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On 2016-04-22 19:08, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>> From: Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Ensure direct jump patching in MIPS is atomic by using
>>> atomic_read()/atomic_set() for code patching.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <serge.f...@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <sergey.fedo...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> * s/atomic_write/atomic_set/
>>>
>>> tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c b/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c
>>> index 682e19897db0..cefc0398018a 100644
>>> --- a/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c
>>> +++ b/tcg/mips/tcg-target.inc.c
>>> @@ -1886,6 +1886,7 @@ static void tcg_target_init(TCGContext *s)
>>> void tb_set_jmp_target1(uintptr_t jmp_addr, uintptr_t addr)
>>> {
>>> uint32_t *ptr = (uint32_t *)jmp_addr;
>>> - *ptr = deposit32(*ptr, 0, 26, addr >> 2);
>>> + uint32_t insn = atomic_read(ptr);
>>> + atomic_set(ptr, deposit32(insn, 0, 26, addr >> 2));
>>> flush_icache_range(jmp_addr, jmp_addr + 4);
>> Does it really make sense to read and write the value atomically? The
>> resulting operation is still not atomic, something can happen in
>> between.
> Hmm, thinking more about that, given the only instruction used is "J",
> we don't have to read the value, patch it and write it. We can directly
> use something like (untested):
>
> atomic_set(ptr, (0x02 << 26) | (addr >> 2));
Hmm, looking at "case INDEX_op_goto_tb:" in tcg_out_op() again I'm
thinking about:
atomic_set(ptr, deposit32(OPC_J, 0, 26, addr >> 2));
Kind regards,
Sergey
