On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100
Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
executing signal return code on signal stacks.
Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
---
target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
--- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
+++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env,
target_ulong addr, int size,
#if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
flags = page_get_flags(addr);
- if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
+ if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ :
PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
env->__excp_addr = addr;
flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
if (nonfault) {
What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.