[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting
From: |
Ilya Leoshkevich |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Jun 2021 14:38:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.4 (3.38.4-1.fc33) |
On Fri, 2021-05-21 at 13:19 +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> qemu-s390x puts a wrong value into SIGILL's siginfo_t's psw.addr: it
> should be a pointer to the instruction following the illegal
> instruction, but at the moment it is a pointer to the illegal
> instruction itself. This breaks OpenJDK, which relies on this value.
>
> Patch 1 fixes the issue, patch 2 adds a test.
>
> v1:
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2021-05/msg06592.html
> v1 -> v2: Use a better buglink (Cornelia), simplify the inline asm
> magic in the test and add an explanation (David).
>
> Ilya Leoshkevich (2):
> target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting
> tests/tcg/s390x: Test SIGILL handling
>
> linux-user/s390x/cpu_loop.c | 6 ++-
> target/s390x/excp_helper.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
> --
> target/s390x/internal.h | 1 +
> tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 +
> tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/sigill.c
Hi,
Is there anything I need to do to have this merged?
Regarding the style checker warning: I could move the function
declaration to a separate header, but from my perspective this would
make the test less readable.
Best regards,
Ilya
- Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] target/s390x: Fix SIGILL psw.addr reporting,
Ilya Leoshkevich <=