On 11/24/21 15:42, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 11/24/21 14:40, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 11/24/21 09:00, Leandro Lupori wrote:
When updating the R bit of a PTE, the Hash64 MMU was using a wrong byte
offset, causing the first byte of the adjacent PTE to be corrupted.
This caused a panic when booting FreeBSD, using the Hash MMU.
I wonder how we never hit this issue before. Are you testing PowerNV
and/or pSeries ?
Could you share a FreeBDS image with us ?
If you add a "Fixes:" tag with the commit that introduced the code you're
fixing, we can push it right away as a bug fix in 6.2 (assuming it doesn't
break anything else, of course).
The commit to be fixed in the case seems to be a2dd4e83e76b ("ppc/hash64:
Rework R and C bit updates")
Indeed.
One more comment below:
Signed-off-by: Leandro Lupori <leandro.lup...@eldorado.org.br>
---
target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c b/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
index 19832c4b46..f165ac691a 100644
--- a/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
+++ b/target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c
@@ -786,7 +786,7 @@ static void ppc_hash64_set_dsi(CPUState *cs, int mmu_idx,
uint64_t dar, uint64_t
static void ppc_hash64_set_r(PowerPCCPU *cpu, hwaddr ptex, uint64_t pte1)
{
- hwaddr base, offset = ptex * HASH_PTE_SIZE_64 + 16;
+ hwaddr base, offset = ptex * HASH_PTE_SIZE_64 + 14;
Instead of adding a '14' you should add a new #define in mmu-hash64.h with this
value, something like "HPTE64_R_R_SHIFT". This will avoid hardcoding literals
around the code and forcing us to go to the ISA every time we wonder what's
an apparently random number represents. There's also a "HPTE64_R_R" defined
there but I'm not sure if it's usable here, so feel free to create a new
macro if needed.
In that note, the original commit that added this code also added a lot of
hardcoded "15" values for the C bit update in spapr_hpte_set_c() and
ppc_hash64_set_c(), and a "14" value like you're changing here in
spapr_hpte_set_r().
If you're feeling generous I believe that another patch replacing these
hardcoded values
with bit shift macros is warranted as well.
May be for 7.0 though ?
Yeah, this extra cleanup I proposed can be postponed to 7.0 in case someone
wants
to give it a go.
Daniel
Thanks,
C.