On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:03:45PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Instead of considering that a CP15 accessor has failed when > returning false, let's consider that it is *always* successful > (after all, we won't stand for an incomplete emulation). > > The return value now simply indicates whether we should skip > the instruction (because it has now been emulated), or if we > should leave the PC alone if the emulation has injected an > exception. >
Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c b/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c > index 519aac12b365..2c14b69511e9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/coproc.c > @@ -520,15 +520,15 @@ static int emulate_cp15(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r))) { > /* Skip instruction, since it was emulated */ > kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu)); > - return 1; > } > - /* If access function fails, it should complain. */ > } else { > + /* If access function fails, it should complain. */ > kvm_err("Unsupported guest CP15 access at: %08lx\n", > *vcpu_pc(vcpu)); > print_cp_instr(params); > + kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu); > } > - kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu); > + > return 1; > } > > -- > 2.11.0 > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
