On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 16:22, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> While the stage2 call to get_phys_addr_lpae should never set
> attrs.secure when given a non-secure input, it's just as easy
> to make the final update to attrs.secure be unconditional and
> false in the case of non-secure input.
>
> Suggested-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> This is the promised patch 1.5 for v3 FEAT_HAFDBS. It generates minor
> conflicts down the line, which I have already fixed up locally. I think
> the first one you would encounter is beyond the proposed 20 that you
> indicated that you intend to take into target-arm.next right now.
>
>
> r~
>
> ---
> target/arm/ptw.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/ptw.c b/target/arm/ptw.c
> index b8c494ad9f..7d763a5847 100644
> --- a/target/arm/ptw.c
> +++ b/target/arm/ptw.c
> @@ -2365,17 +2365,16 @@ bool get_phys_addr(CPUARMState *env, target_ulong
> address,
> result->cacheattrs = combine_cacheattrs(env, cacheattrs1,
> result->cacheattrs);
>
> - /* Check if IPA translates to secure or non-secure PA space. */
> - if (is_secure) {
> - if (ipa_secure) {
> - result->attrs.secure =
> - !(env->cp15.vstcr_el2 & (VSTCR_SA | VSTCR_SW));
> - } else {
> - result->attrs.secure =
> - !((env->cp15.vtcr_el2 & (VTCR_NSA | VTCR_NSW))
> - || (env->cp15.vstcr_el2 & (VSTCR_SA | VSTCR_SW)));
> - }
> - }
If:
is_secure == true
ipa_secure == false
(env->cp15.vstcr_el2 & (VSTCR_SA | VSTCR_SW) is non-zero
(env->cp15.vtcr_el2 & (VTCR_NSA | VTCR_NSW) is zero
then the old code sets attrs.secure to true...
> + /*
> + * Check if IPA translates to secure or non-secure PA space.
> + * Note that VSTCR overrides VTCR and {N}SW overrides {N}SA.
> + */
> + result->attrs.secure =
> + (is_secure
> + && !(env->cp15.vstcr_el2 & (VSTCR_SA | VSTCR_SW))
> + && (ipa_secure
> + || !(env->cp15.vtcr_el2 & (VTCR_NSA | VTCR_NSW))));
...but the new code will set it to false, I think ?
thanks
-- PMM
