3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 5e4ba617c1b584b2e376f31a63bd4e734109318a upstream.
Martin Storsjö reports that the sequence:
ee312ac1 vsub.f32 s4, s3, s2
ee702ac0 vsub.f32 s5, s1, s0
e59f0028 ldr r0, [pc, #40]
ee111a90 vmov r1, s3
on Raspberry Pi (implementor 41 architecture 1 part 20 variant b rev 5)
where s3 is a denormal and s2 is zero results in incorrect behaviour -
the instruction "vsub.f32 s5, s1, s0" is not executed:
VFP: bounce: trigger ee111a90 fpexc d0000780
VFP: emulate: INST=0xee312ac1 SCR=0x00000000
...
As we can see, the instruction triggering the exception is the "vmov"
instruction, and we emulate the "vsub.f32 s4, s3, s2" but fail to
properly take account of the FPEXC_FP2V flag in FPEXC. This is because
the test for the second instruction register being valid is bogus, and
will always skip emulation of the second instruction.
Reported-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Martin Storsjö <martin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
+++ b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
@@ -369,7 +369,7 @@ void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc,
* If there isn't a second FP instruction, exit now. Note that
* the FPEXC.FP2V bit is valid only if FPEXC.EX is 1.
*/
- if (fpexc ^ (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_FP2V))
+ if ((fpexc & (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_FP2V)) != (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_FP2V))
goto exit;
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html