On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:33 AM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:14:21 PDT (-0700), guo...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Guo Ren <ren_...@c-sky.com>
> >
> > Highest 10 bits of PTE are reserved in riscv-privileged, ref: [1], so we
> > need to ignore them. They cannot be a part of ppn.
> >
> > 1: The RISC-V Instruction Set Manual, Volume II: Privileged Architecture
> > 4.4 Sv39: Page-Based 39-bit Virtual-Memory System
> > 4.5 Sv48: Page-Based 48-bit Virtual-Memory System
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Guo Ren <ren_...@c-sky.com>
> > Tested-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Liu Zhiwei <zhiwei_...@c-sky.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
> > ---
> > target/riscv/cpu_bits.h | 7 +++++++
> > target/riscv/cpu_helper.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Changelog V6:
> > - Add Reviewer: Alistair Francis
> >
> > Changelog V5:
> > - Add Reviewer and Tester: Bin Meng
> >
> > Changelog V4:
> > - Change title to Ignore not Bugfix
> > - Use PTE_PPN_MASK for RV32 and RV64
> >
> > Changelog V3:
> > - Use UUL define for PTE_RESERVED
> > - Keep ppn >> PTE_PPN_SHIFT
> >
> > Changelog V2:
> > - Bugfix pte destroyed cause boot fail
> > - Change to AND with a mask instead of shifting both directions
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu_bits.h b/target/riscv/cpu_bits.h
> > index e998348..399c2c6 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu_bits.h
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu_bits.h
> > @@ -473,6 +473,13 @@
> > /* Page table PPN shift amount */
> > #define PTE_PPN_SHIFT 10
> >
> > +/* Page table PPN mask */
> > +#if defined(TARGET_RISCV32)
> > +#define PTE_PPN_MASK 0xffffffffUL
> > +#elif defined(TARGET_RISCV64)
> > +#define PTE_PPN_MASK 0x3fffffffffffffULL
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /* Leaf page shift amount */
> > #define PGSHIFT 12
> >
> > diff --git a/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c b/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > index 87dd6a6..9961b37 100644
> > --- a/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > +++ b/target/riscv/cpu_helper.c
> > @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ restart:
> > #elif defined(TARGET_RISCV64)
> > target_ulong pte = ldq_phys(cs->as, pte_addr);
> > #endif
> > - hwaddr ppn = pte >> PTE_PPN_SHIFT;
> > + hwaddr ppn = (pte & PTE_PPN_MASK) >> PTE_PPN_SHIFT;
> >
> > if (!(pte & PTE_V)) {
> > /* Invalid PTE */
>
> I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but I don't like this. There's ample
> evidence that wrapping the physical address space is a bad idea, and just
> because the ISA allows implementations to do this doesn't mean we should.
I think this is ok as the spec specifically states that "These
reserved bits may also be used to facilitate research
experimentation." and as QEMU is generally used for developing new
features it makes sense to allow guests to set these bit and we just
ignore them.
Software should always set these to zero, so the worst outcome of
doing this is that QEMU will hid software bugs if people set the bits,
but I don't see that as huge downside.
Alistair
