xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
An attempt to write access the register (i.e. GICR_PROPBASER, GICR_PENDBASER)
which should be ignored (i.e. no virtual ITS present) causes the data about
due to incorrect check at the write_ignore_64 label. The check should be
inverted.
Fixes: c4d6bbdc12e5 ("xen/arm: vgic-v3: Support 32-bit access for 64-bit registers")
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
---
 xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
index 2eaa48fadb..b366b046a2 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
@@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ bad_width:
     return 0;
 
 write_ignore_64:
-    if ( vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
+    if ( !vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
     return 1;
 
 write_ignore_32:
-- 
2.34.1Hi Oleksandr,
On 20/05/2025 14:47, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> An attempt to write access the register (i.e. GICR_PROPBASER, GICR_PENDBASER)
> which should be ignored (i.e. no virtual ITS present) causes the data about
I assume, this is a guest data abort, rather than Xen crash?
> due to incorrect check at the write_ignore_64 label. 
> The check should be
> inverted.
OOI, why would a guest try to write to GICR_PROPBASER if the ITS is not 
present? Was it a bug in the OS?
> 
> Fixes: c4d6bbdc12e5 ("xen/arm: vgic-v3: Support 32-bit access for 64-bit registers")
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
With the commit message clarified and Andrew's comments addressed:
Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>
Cheers,
-- 
Julien Grall
                
            
On 20.05.25 18:02, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,
Hello Julien
> 
> On 20/05/2025 14:47, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> An attempt to write access the register (i.e. GICR_PROPBASER, 
>> GICR_PENDBASER)
>> which should be ignored (i.e. no virtual ITS present) causes the data 
>> about
> 
> I assume, this is a guest data abort, rather than Xen crash?
yes
> 
>> due to incorrect check at the write_ignore_64 label. The check should be
>> inverted.
> 
> OOI, why would a guest try to write to GICR_PROPBASER if the ITS is not 
> present? Was it a bug in the OS?
no, it was just me experimenting with redistributor registers.
> 
>>
>> Fixes: c4d6bbdc12e5 ("xen/arm: vgic-v3: Support 32-bit access for 
>> 64-bit registers")
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
> 
> With the commit message clarified and Andrew's comments addressed:
> 
> Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@amazon.com>
thanks
> 
> Cheers,
> 
                
            On 20/05/2025 2:47 pm, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> An attempt to write access the register (i.e. GICR_PROPBASER, GICR_PENDBASER)
> which should be ignored (i.e. no virtual ITS present) causes the data about
Do you mean "data abort" here?  If not, I can't parse the sentence.
> due to incorrect check at the write_ignore_64 label. The check should be
> inverted.
>
> Fixes: c4d6bbdc12e5 ("xen/arm: vgic-v3: Support 32-bit access for 64-bit registers")
> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
> ---
>  xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
> index 2eaa48fadb..b366b046a2 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ bad_width:
>      return 0;
>  
>  write_ignore_64:
> -    if ( vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
> +    if ( !vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
As you're modifying anyway, the goto should be on the next line.
~Andrew
                
            
On 20.05.25 17:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Hello Andrew
> On 20/05/2025 2:47 pm, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> An attempt to write access the register (i.e. GICR_PROPBASER, GICR_PENDBASER)
>> which should be ignored (i.e. no virtual ITS present) causes the data about
> 
> Do you mean "data abort" here?
yes
   If not, I can't parse the sentence.
> 
>> due to incorrect check at the write_ignore_64 label. The check should be
>> inverted.
>>
>> Fixes: c4d6bbdc12e5 ("xen/arm: vgic-v3: Support 32-bit access for 64-bit registers")
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
>> ---
>>   xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
>> index 2eaa48fadb..b366b046a2 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic-v3.c
>> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ bad_width:
>>       return 0;
>>   
>>   write_ignore_64:
>> -    if ( vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
>> +    if ( !vgic_reg64_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;
> 
> As you're modifying anyway, the goto should be on the next line.
ok, will move
> 
> ~Andrew
                
            © 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.