On 28/03/17 13:46, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> If we fail to emulate a mrrc instruction, we: >> 1) deliver an exception, >> 2) spit a nastygram on the console, >> 3) write back some garbage to Rt/Rt2 >> >> While 1) and 2) are perfectly acceptable, 3) is out of the scope of >> the architecture... Let's mimick the code in kvm_handle_cp_32 and >> be more cautious. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 20 +++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> index 4e5d4eee8cec..1080a76e960f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> @@ -1678,20 +1678,18 @@ static int kvm_handle_cp_64(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> params.regval |= vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, Rt2) << 32; >> } >> >> - if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific)) >> - goto out; >> - if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, global, nr_global)) >> - goto out; >> - >> - unhandled_cp_access(vcpu, ¶ms); >> + if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific) || >> + !emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, global, nr_global)) { > > super nit: I choked a bit on this contruct, any objections to adding a > comment like the following above: > > /* > * Try to emulate the coprocessor access using the target > * specific table first, and using the global table aftwards. > * If either of the tables contains a handler, handle the > * potential register operation in the case of a read and return > * with success. > */ > > Too much? > > (If not, I can also add this when applying). No, that's great. Thanks! M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...