On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 22:01, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---
> target/arm/ptw.c | 12 ++++++------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/ptw.c b/target/arm/ptw.c
> index 39ecc093a5..7503d1de6f 100644
> --- a/target/arm/ptw.c
> +++ b/target/arm/ptw.c
> @@ -1643,14 +1643,14 @@ static bool nv_nv1_enabled(CPUARMState *env,
> S1Translate *ptw)
> * @env: CPUARMState
> * @ptw: Current and next stage parameters for the walk.
> * @address: virtual address to get physical address for
> - * @access_type: MMU_DATA_LOAD, MMU_DATA_STORE or MMU_INST_FETCH
> + * @access_perm: PAGE_{READ, WRITE, EXEC}, or 0
> * @memop: memory operation feeding this access, or 0 for none
> * @result: set on translation success,
> * @fi: set to fault info if the translation fails
> */
> static bool get_phys_addr_lpae(CPUARMState *env, S1Translate *ptw,
> uint64_t address,
> - MMUAccessType access_type, MemOp memop,
> + unsigned access_perm, MemOp memop,
> GetPhysAddrResult *result, ARMMMUFaultInfo
> *fi)
> {
> ARMCPU *cpu = env_archcpu(env);
> @@ -1678,7 +1678,7 @@ static bool get_phys_addr_lpae(CPUARMState *env,
> S1Translate *ptw,
> int ps;
>
> param = aa64_va_parameters(env, address, mmu_idx,
> - access_type != MMU_INST_FETCH,
> + !(access_perm & PAGE_EXEC),
> !arm_el_is_aa64(env, 1));
> level = 0;
This will treat a "don't check access permissions" call as
a data-access (relevant for TBI), and means there's no way
to say "do an address lookup for INST_FETCH but don't do the
access-permission check". Is that what we want?
We should at least comment this.
thanks
-- PMM
