Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/18] armv7m: Explicit error for bad vector table

[Michael Davidsaver]

On 11/17/2015 12:33 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 9 November 2015 at 01:11, Michael Davidsaver <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Give an explicit error and abort when a load
>> from VECBASE fails.  Otherwise would likely
>> jump to 0, which for v7-m holds the reset stack
>> pointer address.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Davidsaver <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  target-arm/helper.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
>> index 4178400..1d7ac43 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/helper.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
>> @@ -5496,7 +5496,17 @@ void arm_v7m_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>>      /* Clear IT bits */
>>      env->condexec_bits = 0;
>>      env->regs[14] = lr;
>> -    addr = ldl_phys(cs->as, env->v7m.vecbase + env->v7m.exception * 4);
>> +    {
>> +        MemTxResult result;
>> +        addr = address_space_ldl(cs->as,
>> +                                 env->v7m.vecbase + env->v7m.exception * 4,
>> +                                 MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, &result);
>> +        if (result != MEMTX_OK) {
>> +            cpu_abort(cs, "Failed to read from exception vector table "
>> +                      "entry %08x\n",
>> +                      env->v7m.vecbase + env->v7m.exception * 4);
>> +        }
>> +    }
> 
> The behaviour on a failed vector table read is actually architecturally
> specified: we should take a nested exception (escalated to HardFault).
> If it happens while we're trying to take a HardFault in the first place
> then we go into Lockup (where the CPU sits around repeatedly trying
> to execute an instruction at 0xFFFFFFFE; it is technically possible
> to get back out of Lockup by taking an NMI or a system reset).
> 
> That said, trying to get nested exceptions and priority escalation
> right is fairly involved, and implementing lockup is both involved
> and an exercise in pointlessness. So I think this code is an
> improvement overall.

This is my thinking as well.  One point against it is that abort() is 
inconvenient when using '-gdb'.  I'm not sure if there is something else which 
could be done (cpu halt?).

> I would suggest some small changes, though:
> 
> (1) factor this out into its own function, something like:
> static uint32_t v7m_read_vector(CPUARMState *env, int excnum)
> so the calling code can just do
>    addr = v7m_read_vector(env, env->v7m.exception);
> (2) use a local variable for "env->v7m.vecbase + excnum * 4"
> rather than calculating it twice

Done.