>> This would mean that it is not OK to have bit 52 not zero for swap PTEs.
>> But if I read the POP correctly, all bits except for the DAT-protection
>> would be ignored for invalid PTEs, so maybe this comment needs some update
>> (for both bits 52 and also 55).
>>
>> Heiko might also have some more insight.
>
> Indeed, I wonder why we should get a specification exception when the
> PTE is invalid. I'll dig a bit into the PoP.
SA22-7832-12 6-46 ("Translation-Specification Exception") is clearer
"The page-table entry used for the translation is
valid, and bit position 52 does not contain zero."
"The page-table entry used for the translation is
valid, EDAT-1 does not apply, the instruction-exe-
cution-protection facility is not installed, and bit
position 55 does not contain zero. It is model
dependent whether this condition is recognized."
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
