On 18/01/18 16:53, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +1100, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 18/01/18 16:20, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:32:35PM +1100, Suraj Jitindar Singh wrote:
>>>> The new H-Call H_GET_CPU_CHARACTERISTICS is used by the guest to query
>>>> behaviours and available characteristics of the cpu.
>>>>
>>>> Implement the handler for this new H-Call which formulates its response
>>>> based on the setting of the spapr_caps cap-cfpc, cap-sbbc and cap-ibs.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suraj Jitindar Singh <sjitindarsi...@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 66
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/hw/ppc/spapr.h | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>>> index 51eba52e86..a693d3b852 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c
>>>> @@ -1654,6 +1654,69 @@ static target_ulong
>>>> h_client_architecture_support(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
>>>> return H_SUCCESS;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static target_ulong h_get_cpu_characteristics(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
>>>> + sPAPRMachineState *spapr,
>>>> + target_ulong opcode,
>>>> + target_ulong *args)
>>>> +{
>>>> + uint64_t characteristics = H_CPU_CHAR_HON_BRANCH_HINTS &
>>>> + ~H_CPU_CHAR_THR_RECONF_TRIG;
>>>> + uint64_t behaviour = H_CPU_BEHAV_FAVOUR_SECURITY;
>>>> + uint8_t safe_cache = spapr_get_cap(spapr, SPAPR_CAP_CFPC);
>>>> + uint8_t safe_bounds_check = spapr_get_cap(spapr, SPAPR_CAP_SBBC);
>>>> + uint8_t safe_indirect_branch = spapr_get_cap(spapr, SPAPR_CAP_IBS);
>>>> +
>>>> + switch (safe_cache) {
>>>> + case SPAPR_CAP_WORKAROUND:
>>>> + characteristics |= H_CPU_CHAR_L1D_FLUSH_ORI30;
>>>> + characteristics |= H_CPU_CHAR_L1D_FLUSH_TRIG2;
>>>> + characteristics |= H_CPU_CHAR_L1D_THREAD_PRIV;
>>>> + behaviour |= H_CPU_BEHAV_L1D_FLUSH_PR;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case SPAPR_CAP_FIXED:
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default: /* broken */
>>>> + if (safe_cache != SPAPR_CAP_BROKEN) {
>>>
>>> I think you just assert() for this. The only way these could get a
>>> different value is if there's a bug elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Why not return H_HARDWARE or other error?
>
> Because what's the guest supposed to do with it. "oops" > This is an internal > qemu problem, so it should be dealt with via an internal qemu > mechanism. Do we have assert() enabled in production? If not, then assert == noop, error_report is just a noise. -- Alexey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
