On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:51:48PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 06:37 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit 9aed02feae57bf7a40cb04ea0e3017cb7a998db4 upstream.
> >
> > After emulating an unaligned access in delay slot of a branch, we
> > pretend as the delay slot never happened - so return back to actual
> > branch target (or next PC if branch was not taken).
> >
> > Curently we did this by handling STATUS32.DE, we also need to clear the
> > BTA.T bit, which is disregarded when returning from original misaligned
> > exception, but could cause weirdness if it took the interrupt return
> > path (in case interrupt was acive too)
> >
> > One ARC700 customer ran into this when enabling unaligned access fixup
> > for kernel mode accesses as well
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c
> > +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c
> > @@ -241,8 +241,9 @@ int misaligned_fixup(unsigned long addre
> > if (state.fault)
> > goto fault;
> >
> > + /* clear any remanants of delay slot */
> > if (delay_mode(regs)) {
> > - regs->ret = regs->bta;
> > + regs->ret = regs->bta ~1U;
>
> Unless you're doing something terrible with macros, this is missing an
> & operator. I doubt this even compiled (looks like it's only used in
> some ARC configurations).
Hah, that's funny, it's obvious it isn't part of anyone's build tests,
so I guess it must be just fine :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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