Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes:
> On 26 September 2018 at 12:20, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> This only fails with some (broken) versions of gdb but we should
>> treat the top bits of DBGBVR as RESS. As the hardware may have IMPDEF
>> approaches to writes to this register we apply the sign extension when
>> checking breakpoints.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> target/arm/kvm64.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/kvm64.c b/target/arm/kvm64.c
>> index e0b8246283..80ad07ed0c 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/kvm64.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/kvm64.c
>> @@ -356,13 +356,23 @@ bool kvm_arm_hw_debug_active(CPUState *cs)
>> return ((cur_hw_wps > 0) || (cur_hw_bps > 0));
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * We shouldn't rely on gdb correctly setting the top bits of DBGBVR
>> + * and the HW lists the top bits a RESS - sign-extending the top bit
>> + * of the VA address. As it is IMPDEF if the write is either a sign
>> + * extension or kept as is we might fix it up before we compare with
>> + * the correctly reported and sign extended address.
>> + */
>> +
>> static bool find_hw_breakpoint(CPUState *cpu, target_ulong pc)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < cur_hw_bps; i++) {
>> HWBreakpoint *bp = get_hw_bp(i);
>> - if (bp->bvr == pc) {
>> + target_ulong bvr = bp->bvr;
>> + bvr |= extract64(bvr, 52, 1) ? MAKE_64BIT_MASK(53, 11) : 0;
>> + if (bvr == pc) {
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>
> Shouldn't we be sanitizing the addresses we get from gdb
> before we put them into the hardware watchpoint registers,
> rather than doing the sign extension when we read the registers?
I guess that works too. I'll switch it around.
--
Alex Bennée
