| Message ID | 1317111439-6478-1-git-send-email-yu.liu@freescale.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 27.09.2011, at 10:17, Liu Yu wrote: > Signed-off-by: Liu Yu <yu.liu@freescale.com> Patch description missing. Also, please always CC qemu-ppc@nongnu.org for patches concerning ppc. > --- > hw/ppce500_pci.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/ppce500_pci.c b/hw/ppce500_pci.c > index 2db365d..3e24e85 100644 > --- a/hw/ppce500_pci.c > +++ b/hw/ppce500_pci.c > @@ -108,15 +108,18 @@ static uint32_t pci_reg_read4(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr) > > case PPCE500_PCI_IW3: > case PPCE500_PCI_IW2: > - case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: > + case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: { > + int idx = ((addr >> 5) & 0x3) - 1; So this is the main change, right? Why the -1? A guest could potentially access pib[-1] using this, no? > + > switch (addr & 0xC) { > - case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].pitar; break; > - case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbar; break; > - case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbear; break; > - case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwar; break; > + case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[idx].pitar; break; > + case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbar; break; > + case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbear; break; > + case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwar; break; I'm fairly sure this breaks checkpatch.pl. Alex
On 09/27/2011 07:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 27.09.2011, at 10:17, Liu Yu wrote: >> --- >> hw/ppce500_pci.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppce500_pci.c b/hw/ppce500_pci.c >> index 2db365d..3e24e85 100644 >> --- a/hw/ppce500_pci.c >> +++ b/hw/ppce500_pci.c >> @@ -108,15 +108,18 @@ static uint32_t pci_reg_read4(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr) >> >> case PPCE500_PCI_IW3: >> case PPCE500_PCI_IW2: >> - case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: >> + case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: { >> + int idx = ((addr >> 5) & 0x3) - 1; > > So this is the main change, right? Why the -1? A guest could potentially access pib[-1] using this, no? Not with the values of addr that lead to this code. The -1 is because IW1/2/3 are 0x1e0/0x1c0/0x1a0. Previously IW1 would overflow the array. >> switch (addr & 0xC) { >> - case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].pitar; break; >> - case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbar; break; >> - case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbear; break; >> - case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwar; break; >> + case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[idx].pitar; break; >> + case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbar; break; >> + case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbear; break; >> + case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwar; break; > > I'm fairly sure this breaks checkpatch.pl. So does the original code... If this is to be fixed, the outbound window switch should be fixed too (and made to use idx, for consistency). -Scott
On 27.09.2011, at 18:52, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/27/2011 07:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 27.09.2011, at 10:17, Liu Yu wrote: >>> --- >>> hw/ppce500_pci.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- >>> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/ppce500_pci.c b/hw/ppce500_pci.c >>> index 2db365d..3e24e85 100644 >>> --- a/hw/ppce500_pci.c >>> +++ b/hw/ppce500_pci.c >>> @@ -108,15 +108,18 @@ static uint32_t pci_reg_read4(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr) >>> >>> case PPCE500_PCI_IW3: >>> case PPCE500_PCI_IW2: >>> - case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: >>> + case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: { >>> + int idx = ((addr >> 5) & 0x3) - 1; >> >> So this is the main change, right? Why the -1? A guest could potentially access pib[-1] using this, no? > > Not with the values of addr that lead to this code. The -1 is because > IW1/2/3 are 0x1e0/0x1c0/0x1a0. Previously IW1 would overflow the array. We're matching on addr & 0xfe0 and do the switch based on that. Possible values are: 0x1a0 0x1c0 0x1e0 Then we >> 5 them. 0xd 0xe 0xf ... and & 0x3 them 0x1 0x2 0x0 ... and apply -1: 0x0 0x1 -1 > >>> switch (addr & 0xC) { >>> - case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].pitar; break; >>> - case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbar; break; >>> - case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbear; break; >>> - case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwar; break; >>> + case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[idx].pitar; break; >>> + case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbar; break; >>> + case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbear; break; >>> + case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwar; break; >> >> I'm fairly sure this breaks checkpatch.pl. > > So does the original code... > > If this is to be fixed, the outbound window switch should be fixed too > (and made to use idx, for consistency). Yes, please. My preferred way to do this would be to send a cleanup patch that fixes the coding style issues first (can be in the same patch set) and then another patch for functional changes on top. Makes it easier to review. Alex
On 09/27/2011 10:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > 0xd > 0xe > 0xf > > ... and & 0x3 them > > 0x1 > 0x2 > 0x0 That's a remarkably different AND function... r~
On 27.09.2011, at 19:04, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/27/2011 10:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> 0xd >> 0xe >> 0xf >> >> ... and & 0x3 them >> >> 0x1 >> 0x2 >> 0x0 > > That's a remarkably different AND function... No, it's a typo. I typed % instead of & and didn't realize it. Bleks. :) Alex
On 09/27/2011 12:01 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 27.09.2011, at 18:52, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/27/2011 07:45 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> So this is the main change, right? Why the -1? A guest could potentially access pib[-1] using this, no? >> >> Not with the values of addr that lead to this code. The -1 is because >> IW1/2/3 are 0x1e0/0x1c0/0x1a0. Previously IW1 would overflow the array. > > We're matching on addr & 0xfe0 and do the switch based on that. Possible values are: > > 0x1a0 > 0x1c0 > 0x1e0 > > Then we >> 5 them. > > 0xd > 0xe > 0xf > > ... and & 0x3 them > > 0x1 > 0x2 > 0x0 0xd & 0x3 = 1 0xe & 0x3 = 2 0xf & 0x3 = 3 -Scott
diff --git a/hw/ppce500_pci.c b/hw/ppce500_pci.c index 2db365d..3e24e85 100644 --- a/hw/ppce500_pci.c +++ b/hw/ppce500_pci.c @@ -108,15 +108,18 @@ static uint32_t pci_reg_read4(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr) case PPCE500_PCI_IW3: case PPCE500_PCI_IW2: - case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: + case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: { + int idx = ((addr >> 5) & 0x3) - 1; + switch (addr & 0xC) { - case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].pitar; break; - case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbar; break; - case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbear; break; - case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwar; break; + case PCI_PITAR: value = pci->pib[idx].pitar; break; + case PCI_PIWBAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbar; break; + case PCI_PIWBEAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwbear; break; + case PCI_PIWAR: value = pci->pib[idx].piwar; break; default: break; }; break; + } case PPCE500_PCI_GASKET_TIMR: value = pci->gasket_time; @@ -164,15 +167,18 @@ static void pci_reg_write4(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr, case PPCE500_PCI_IW3: case PPCE500_PCI_IW2: - case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: + case PPCE500_PCI_IW1: { + int idx = ((addr >> 5) & 0x3) - 1; + switch (addr & 0xC) { - case PCI_PITAR: pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].pitar = value; break; - case PCI_PIWBAR: pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbar = value; break; - case PCI_PIWBEAR: pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwbear = value; break; - case PCI_PIWAR: pci->pib[(addr >> 5) & 0x3].piwar = value; break; + case PCI_PITAR: pci->pib[idx].pitar = value; break; + case PCI_PIWBAR: pci->pib[idx].piwbar = value; break; + case PCI_PIWBEAR: pci->pib[idx].piwbear = value; break; + case PCI_PIWAR: pci->pib[idx].piwar = value; break; default: break; }; break; + } case PPCE500_PCI_GASKET_TIMR: pci->gasket_time = value;
Signed-off-by: Liu Yu <yu.liu@freescale.com> --- hw/ppce500_pci.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)