[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 3/3] tests/tcg/s390x: Test BRASL and BRCL with large negative
From: |
David Hildenbrand |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 3/3] tests/tcg/s390x: Test BRASL and BRCL with large negative offsets |
Date: |
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 19:57:33 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2 |
On 11.03.22 19:49, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> Add a small test in order to prevent regressions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target | 1 +
> tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
>
> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
> index 257c568c58..fd34b130f7 100644
> --- a/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/Makefile.target
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ TESTS+=mvc
> TESTS+=shift
> TESTS+=trap
> TESTS+=signals-s390x
> +TESTS+=branch-relative-long
>
> ifneq ($(HAVE_GDB_BIN),)
> GDB_SCRIPT=$(SRC_PATH)/tests/guest-debug/run-test.py
> diff --git a/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..b9fcee9873
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/tcg/s390x/branch-relative-long.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
> +#include <assert.h>
> +#include <stddef.h>
> +#include <sys/mman.h>
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + const unsigned short opcodes[] = {
> + 0xc005, /* brasl %r0 */
> + 0xc0f4, /* brcl 0xf */
> + };
> + size_t length = 0x100000006;
> + unsigned char *buf;
> + int i;
> +
> + buf = mmap(NULL, length, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC,
> + MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> + assert(buf != MAP_FAILED);
> +
> + *(unsigned short *)&buf[0] = 0x07fe; /* br %r14 */
> + *(unsigned int *)&buf[0x100000002] = 0x80000000;
> + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(opcodes) / sizeof(opcodes[0]); i++) {
> + *(unsigned short *)&buf[0x100000000] = opcodes[i];
> + ((void (*)(void))&buf[0x100000000])();
> + }
Hmmm, can't we write some "nice" inline asm instead?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb