[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PATCH 3/4] linux-user/arm: Handle invalid arm-specific syscalls correct
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
[PATCH 3/4] linux-user/arm: Handle invalid arm-specific syscalls correctly |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Apr 2020 22:22:05 +0100 |
The kernel has different handling for syscalls with invalid
numbers that are in the "arm-specific" range 0x9f0000 and up:
* 0x9f0000..0x9f07ff return -ENOSYS if not implemented
* other out of range syscalls cause a SIGILL
(see the kernel's arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:arm_syscall())
Implement this distinction. (Note that our code doesn't look
quite like the kernel's, because we have removed the
0x900000 prefix by this point, whereas the kernel retains
it in arm_syscall().)
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
---
linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c b/linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c
index 025887d6b86..f042108b0be 100644
--- a/linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c
+++ b/linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c
@@ -332,10 +332,32 @@ void cpu_loop(CPUARMState *env)
env->regs[0] = cpu_get_tls(env);
break;
default:
- qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP,
- "qemu: Unsupported ARM syscall:
0x%x\n",
- n);
- env->regs[0] = -TARGET_ENOSYS;
+ if (n < 0xf0800) {
+ /*
+ * Syscalls 0xf0000..0xf07ff (or 0x9f0000..
+ * 0x9f07ff in OABI numbering) are defined
+ * to return -ENOSYS rather than raising
+ * SIGILL. Note that we have already
+ * removed the 0x900000 prefix.
+ */
+ qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP,
+ "qemu: Unsupported ARM syscall: 0x%x\n",
+ n);
+ env->regs[0] = -TARGET_ENOSYS;
+ } else {
+ /* Otherwise SIGILL */
+ info.si_signo = TARGET_SIGILL;
+ info.si_errno = 0;
+ info.si_code = TARGET_ILL_ILLTRP;
+ info._sifields._sigfault._addr = env->regs[15];
+ if (env->thumb) {
+ info._sifields._sigfault._addr -= 2;
+ } else {
+ info._sifields._sigfault._addr -= 2;
+ }
+ queue_signal(env, info.si_signo,
+ QEMU_SI_FAULT, &info);
+ }
break;
}
} else {
--
2.20.1