On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:51:48PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 06:37 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> > > > > commit 9aed02feae57bf7a40cb04ea0e3017cb7a998db4 upstream. > > > > After emulating an unaligned access in delay slot of a branch, we > > pretend as the delay slot never happened - so return back to actual > > branch target (or next PC if branch was not taken). > > > > Curently we did this by handling STATUS32.DE, we also need to clear the > > BTA.T bit, which is disregarded when returning from original misaligned > > exception, but could cause weirdness if it took the interrupt return > > path (in case interrupt was acive too) > > > > One ARC700 customer ran into this when enabling unaligned access fixup > > for kernel mode accesses as well > > > > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- a/arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c > > +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c > > @@ -241,8 +241,9 @@ int misaligned_fixup(unsigned long addre > > if (state.fault) > > goto fault; > > > > + /* clear any remanants of delay slot */ > > if (delay_mode(regs)) { > > - regs->ret = regs->bta; > > + regs->ret = regs->bta ~1U; > > Unless you're doing something terrible with macros, this is missing an > & operator. I doubt this even compiled (looks like it's only used in > some ARC configurations).
Hah, that's funny, it's obvious it isn't part of anyone's build tests, so I guess it must be just fine :) thanks, greg k-h
