Re: [PATCH 2/2] target/arm: Fix arm_cpu_get_phys_page_attrs_debug for m-profile

[Richard Henderson]

On 2/21/23 06:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 03:42, Richard Henderson
> <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > M-profile is not supported by arm_is_secure, so using it as
> > a replacement when bypassing get_phys_addr was incorrect.
>
> That's pretty non-obvious. I think we should either
> make arm_is_secure() handle M-profile[*], or else have
> it assert if you try to call it for an M-profile CPU.
>
> [*] i.e.
>    if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_M)) {
>        return env->v7m.secure;
>    }
> at the top of the function.
>
> If we do the latter we wouldn't need the revert in patch 1,
> right? Or do you think regime_is_secure() is a better
> choice of function here anyway?

You're absolutely right that it's surprising, as it surprised me.
I'll re-spin.

r~