target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Commit a2260983c655 ("hvf: arm: Add support for GICv3") added GICv3 support
by implementing emulation for a few system registers. ICC_RPR_EL1 was
defined but not plugged in the sysreg handlers (for no good reason).
Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev>
---
target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
index 87e35c1b71..650b7f4256 100644
--- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
+++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
@@ -1359,6 +1359,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_read(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t *val)
case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
+ case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
@@ -1673,6 +1674,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_write(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t val)
case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
+ case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
--
2.34.1
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 at 13:21, Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> Commit a2260983c655 ("hvf: arm: Add support for GICv3") added GICv3 support
> by implementing emulation for a few system registers. ICC_RPR_EL1 was
> defined but not plugged in the sysreg handlers (for no good reason).
>
> Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev>
> ---
> target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> index 87e35c1b71..650b7f4256 100644
> --- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> +++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> @@ -1359,6 +1359,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_read(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t *val)
> case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
> + case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
> @@ -1673,6 +1674,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_write(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t val)
> case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
> + case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
> case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
ICC_RPR_EL1 is a read-only register. But hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
and hvf_sysreg_write_cp() do not check the .access field of the
ARMCPRegInfo to ensure that they forbid writes to registers that
are marked with a .access field that says they're read-only
(and ditto reads to write-only registers). So either we should
not list ICC_RPR_EL1 in this list in hvf_sysreg_write(), or
else we should add the .access checks to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
and hvf_sysreg_write_cp().
I would favour the second of those two options, because it's
more robust and means we only need to care about the access
permissions of a register in one place. Plus we already get
this wrong for some registers: for instance ICC_SGI1R_EL1
is write-only but we will permit the guest to read it.
So I suggest a 2-patch series:
* patch 1: add the checks on .access to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
and hvf_sysreg_write_cp(): they need to call
cp_access_ok() to check this
* patch 2: can then be this patch without modification
thanks
-- PMM
On 2025/3/19 00:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 at 13:21, Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > Commit a2260983c655 ("hvf: arm: Add support for GICv3") added GICv3 support
> > by implementing emulation for a few system registers. ICC_RPR_EL1 was
> > defined but not plugged in the sysreg handlers (for no good reason).
> >
> > Fix it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev>
> > ---
> > target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> > index 87e35c1b71..650b7f4256 100644
> > --- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> > +++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> > @@ -1359,6 +1359,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_read(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t *val)
> > case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
> > + case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
> > @@ -1673,6 +1674,7 @@ static int hvf_sysreg_write(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t val)
> > case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN0_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_IGRPEN1_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_PMR_EL1:
> > + case SYSREG_ICC_RPR_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SGI0R_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SGI1R_EL1:
> > case SYSREG_ICC_SRE_EL1:
>
> ICC_RPR_EL1 is a read-only register.
Yup! Writes to it should result in an UNDEFINED exception. I completely
missed that point..
> But hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> and hvf_sysreg_write_cp() do not check the .access field of the
> ARMCPRegInfo to ensure that they forbid writes to registers that
> are marked with a .access field that says they're read-only
> (and ditto reads to write-only registers). So either we should
> not list ICC_RPR_EL1 in this list in hvf_sysreg_write(), or
> else we should add the .access checks to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> and hvf_sysreg_write_cp().
>
> I would favour the second of those two options, because it's
> more robust and means we only need to care about the access
> permissions of a register in one place. Plus we already get
> this wrong for some registers: for instance ICC_SGI1R_EL1
> is write-only but we will permit the guest to read it.
>
> So I suggest a 2-patch series:
> * patch 1: add the checks on .access to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> and hvf_sysreg_write_cp(): they need to call
> cp_access_ok() to check this
Thanks for your detailed suggestion Peter! I come up with something like
diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
index 650b7f4256..a7ca7975e0 100644
--- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
+++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
@@ -1264,6 +1264,9 @@ static bool hvf_sysreg_read_cp(CPUState *cpu,
uint32_t reg, uint64_t *val)
ri = get_arm_cp_reginfo(arm_cpu->cp_regs, hvf_reg2cp_reg(reg));
if (ri) {
+ if (!cp_access_ok(arm_current_el(env), ri, true)) {
+ return false;
+ }
if (ri->accessfn) {
if (ri->accessfn(env, ri, true) != CP_ACCESS_OK) {
return false;
@@ -1545,6 +1548,9 @@ static bool hvf_sysreg_write_cp(CPUState *cpu,
uint32_t reg, uint64_t val)
ri = get_arm_cp_reginfo(arm_cpu->cp_regs, hvf_reg2cp_reg(reg));
if (ri) {
+ if (!cp_access_ok(arm_current_el(env), ri, false)) {
+ return false;
+ }
if (ri->accessfn) {
if (ri->accessfn(env, ri, false) != CP_ACCESS_OK) {
return false;
I'll do some tests before sending it out.
Thanks,
Zenghui
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the long delay..
On 2025/3/21 00:55, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> On 2025/3/19 00:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> > ICC_RPR_EL1 is a read-only register.
>
> Yup! Writes to it should result in an UNDEFINED exception. I completely
> missed that point..
>
> > But hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> > and hvf_sysreg_write_cp() do not check the .access field of the
> > ARMCPRegInfo to ensure that they forbid writes to registers that
> > are marked with a .access field that says they're read-only
> > (and ditto reads to write-only registers). So either we should
> > not list ICC_RPR_EL1 in this list in hvf_sysreg_write(), or
> > else we should add the .access checks to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> > and hvf_sysreg_write_cp().
> >
> > I would favour the second of those two options, because it's
> > more robust and means we only need to care about the access
> > permissions of a register in one place. Plus we already get
> > this wrong for some registers: for instance ICC_SGI1R_EL1
> > is write-only but we will permit the guest to read it.
> >
> > So I suggest a 2-patch series:
> > * patch 1: add the checks on .access to hvf_sysreg_read_cp()
> > and hvf_sysreg_write_cp(): they need to call
> > cp_access_ok() to check this
>
> Thanks for your detailed suggestion Peter! I come up with something like
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> index 650b7f4256..a7ca7975e0 100644
> --- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> +++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> @@ -1264,6 +1264,9 @@ static bool hvf_sysreg_read_cp(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t *val)
>
> ri = get_arm_cp_reginfo(arm_cpu->cp_regs, hvf_reg2cp_reg(reg));
> if (ri) {
> + if (!cp_access_ok(arm_current_el(env), ri, true)) {
I wonder if arm_current_el() can be used at it to determine the current
exception EL.
|static inline int arm_current_el(CPUARMState *env)
|{
| // ...
|
| if (is_a64(env)) {
| return extract32(env->pstate, 2, 2);
| }
I failed to find where env->pstate gets updated on vcpu exit. Please fix
me up if I've missed any obvious points.
> + return false;
> + }
> if (ri->accessfn) {
> if (ri->accessfn(env, ri, true) != CP_ACCESS_OK) {
> return false;
> @@ -1545,6 +1548,9 @@ static bool hvf_sysreg_write_cp(CPUState *cpu, uint32_t reg, uint64_t val)
> ri = get_arm_cp_reginfo(arm_cpu->cp_regs, hvf_reg2cp_reg(reg));
>
> if (ri) {
> + if (!cp_access_ok(arm_current_el(env), ri, false)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> if (ri->accessfn) {
> if (ri->accessfn(env, ri, false) != CP_ACCESS_OK) {
> return false;
Thanks,
Zenghui
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.