On 29 June 2018 at 14:29, Luc Michel <luc.mic...@greensocs.com> wrote: > An access to the CPU interface is non-secure if the current GIC instance > implements the security extensions, and the memory access is actually > non-secure. Until then, it was checked with tests such as > if (s->security_extn && !attrs.secure) { ... } > in various places of the CPU interface code. > > With the implementation of the virtualization extensions, those tests > must be updated to take into account whether we are in a vCPU interface > or not. This is because the exposed vCPU interface does not implement > security extensions. > > This commits replaces all those tests with a call to the > gic_cpu_ns_access() function to check if the current access to the CPU > interface is non-secure. This function takes into account whether the > current CPU is a vCPU or not.
Thanks -- this approach looks much cleaner. > Note that this function is used only in the (v)CPU interface code path. > The distributor code path is leaved unchanged, as the distributor is not "left" > exposed to vCPUs at all. > > Signed-off-by: Luc Michel <luc.mic...@greensocs.com> > --- Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> thanks -- PMM