On 3/5/20 11:00 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 05.03.20 10:42, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 3/4/20 6:55 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 04.03.20 12:42, Janosch Frank wrote: >>>> IO instruction data is routed through SIDAD for protected guests, so >>>> adresses do not need to be checked, as this is kernel memory. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <fran...@linux.ibm.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>>> --- >>>> target/s390x/ioinst.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/ioinst.c b/target/s390x/ioinst.c >>>> index c437a1d8c6..e4102430aa 100644 >>>> --- a/target/s390x/ioinst.c >>>> +++ b/target/s390x/ioinst.c >>>> @@ -17,6 +17,16 @@ >>>> #include "trace.h" >>>> #include "hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h" >>>> >>>> +static uint64_t get_address_from_regs(CPUS390XState *env, uint32_t ipb, >>>> + uint8_t *ar) >>>> +{ >>> >>> Please add a comment here why this is done. (e.g., make all address >>> checks - like alignment checks - in the caller succeed, and we don't >>> need the address). >> >> * Addresses for protected guests are all offsets into the >> >> >> * satellite block which holds the IO control structures. Those > > maybe mention SIDA as well
huh? SIDA is the satellite block > >> >> >> * control structures are always aligned and accessible, so we can >> >> >> * return 0 here which will pass the following address checks. >> >> ? > > > Sounds good! > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature