On 1/19/21 7:03 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 22:47, Richard Henderson > <richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> We must always use GUEST_ADDR_MAX, because even 32-bit hosts can >> use -R <reserved_va> to restrict the memory address of the guest. >> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> >> --- >> include/exec/cpu_ldst.h | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h b/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h >> index 4e6ef3d542..e62f4fba00 100644 >> --- a/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h >> +++ b/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h >> @@ -72,11 +72,10 @@ typedef uint64_t abi_ptr; >> /* All direct uses of g2h and h2g need to go away for usermode softmmu. */ >> #define g2h(x) ((void *)((uintptr_t)(abi_ptr)(x) + guest_base)) >> >> -#if HOST_LONG_BITS <= TARGET_VIRT_ADDR_SPACE_BITS >> -#define guest_addr_valid(x) (1) >> -#else >> -#define guest_addr_valid(x) ((x) <= GUEST_ADDR_MAX) >> -#endif >> +static inline bool guest_addr_valid(abi_ulong x) >> +{ >> + return x <= GUEST_ADDR_MAX; >> +} > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > Looking back at patch 9 -- if we always check against > GUEST_ADDR_MAX here, should we also do that for h2g_valid(), > or are the two uses different ? > (The v2->v3 changes list for patch 9 suggests we may have > had this discussion previously, but I forget the details...)
I had thought we should always check GUEST_ADDR_MAX. If something is outside G_A_M, then it doesn't fit into the reserved_va that either (1) the user requested via the command-line or (2) for which the guest has constraints (e.g. TARGET_VIRT_ADDR_SPACE_BITS for sh4 or mips, requiring 31-bit addresses). r~