On 16/03/2023 00.26, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
Add a number of small test that check whether accessing unaligned
addresses in various ways leads to a specification exception.
Run these test both in softmmu and user configurations; expect a PGM
in one case and SIGILL in the other.
Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com>
---
...
diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/pgm-specification.inc
b/tests/tcg/s390x/pgm-specification.inc
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..e3899ed4718
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/pgm-specification.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+/*
+ * Common code for specification exception testing.
+ *
+ * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SOFTMMU
+ .org 0x8d
+ilc:
+ .org 0x8e
+program_interruption_code:
+ .org 0x150
+program_old_psw:
+ .org 0x1D0 /* program new PSW */
+ .quad 0x180000000,pgm /* 64-bit mode */
+ .org 0x200 /* lowcore padding */
+
+ .globl _start
+_start:
+ lpswe start64_psw
+start64:
+ CODE
+ j failure
+
+pgm:
+ chhsi program_interruption_code,0x6 /* PGM_SPECIFICATION? */
+ jne failure
+ lg %r0,expected_old_psw+8 /* ilc adjustment */
+ llgc %r1,ilc
+ agr %r0,%r1
+ stg %r0,expected_old_psw+8
+ clc expected_old_psw(16),program_old_psw /* correct location? */
+ jne failure
+ lpswe success_psw
+failure:
+ lpswe failure_psw
+
+ .align 8
+start64_psw:
+ .quad 0x180000000,start64 /* 64-bit mode */
+expected_old_psw:
+#ifndef EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA
+#define EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA expected_old_pswa
+#endif
+ .quad 0x180000000,EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA
+success_psw:
+ .quad 0x2000180000000,0xfff /* see is_special_wait_psw() */
+failure_psw:
+ .quad 0x2000180000000,0 /* disabled wait */
+ DATA
+#else
+#include <assert.h>
+#include <signal.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+
+#ifndef EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA
+extern char expected_old_pswa[];
+#define EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA (long)expected_old_pswa
+#endif
+
+static void handle_sigill(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ucontext)
+{
+ if ((long)info->si_addr != EXPECTED_OLD_PSWA) {
+ _exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+ _exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
+}
+
+asm(" .data\n"
+ " .align 8\n"
+ DATA
+ " .previous\n");
+
+int main(void)
+{
+ struct sigaction act;
+ int err;
+
+ memset(&act, 0, sizeof(act));
+ act.sa_sigaction = handle_sigill;
+ act.sa_flags = SA_SIGINFO;
+ err = sigaction(SIGILL, &act, NULL);
+ assert(err == 0);
+
+ asm volatile(CODE);
+
+ return EXIT_FAILURE;
+}
+#endif
Honestly, this looks like quite a ugly pre-processor magic to me. Wouldn't
it be possible to have the test code in normal .S files instead and then
link it once with the C code for the linux-user binaries, and once with the
assembly startup code for the system binaries?
Thomas
