On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 17:33:36 +0100,
Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:59:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 10:25:28 +0100,
> > Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(PIR_EL2, PIR_EL1, NULL );
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(PIRE0_EL2, PIRE0_EL1, NULL );
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(POR_EL2, POR_EL1, NULL );
> > > + MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(GCSCR_EL2, GCSCR_EL1, NULL );
> > > + MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(GCSPR_EL2, GCSPR_EL1, NULL );
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(AMAIR_EL2, AMAIR_EL1, NULL );
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(ELR_EL2, ELR_EL1, NULL );
> > > MAPPED_EL2_SYSREG(SPSR_EL2, SPSR_EL1, NULL );
>
> > Just like the previous version, you're missing the accessors that
> > would be this table useful. Meaning that the vcpu_read_sys_reg() and
> > vcpu_write_sys_reg() accessors will fail for all 4 GSC registers.
>
> Just to confirm, this is __vcpu_{read,write}_sysreg()?
No.
vcpu_{read,write}_sys_reg() and co are the broken high-level
accessors. __vcpu_{read,write}_sysreg() call into those depending on
the context, and __vcpu_{read,write}_sys_reg_{to,from}_cpu() have now
been removed and replaced by similar (but private) accessors.
See -rc4 for the details.
In any case, a bunch of register accesses in this series are broken,
as they don't respect the register life cycle of the guest.
M.
--
Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny.
