Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Fix MTE0_ACTIVE

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 20:44, Richard Henderson
<richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> In 50244cc76abc we updated mte_check_fail to match the ARM
> pseudocode, using the correct EL to select the TCF field.
> But we failed to update MTE0_ACTIVE the same way, which led
> to g_assert_not_reached().
>
> Cc: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1907137
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  target/arm/helper.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
> index 7b8bcd6903..4597081d5d 100644
> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
> @@ -12932,7 +12932,7 @@ static uint32_t rebuild_hflags_a64(CPUARMState *env, 
> int el, int fp_el,
>          if (FIELD_EX32(flags, TBFLAG_A64, UNPRIV)
>              && tbid
>              && !(env->pstate & PSTATE_TCO)
> -            && (sctlr & SCTLR_TCF0)
> +            && (sctlr & SCTLR_TCF)
>              && allocation_tag_access_enabled(env, 0, sctlr)) {
>              flags = FIELD_DP32(flags, TBFLAG_A64, MTE0_ACTIVE, 1);
>          }


I don't understand this change, could you explain a bit more?
In commit 50244cc76abcac we change to looking at the TCF
field corresponding to the actual current EL instead of the
EL for the memory-access. But if we're doing that then why
should we be looking at exclusively SCTLR_TCF0 in this
for-unpriv-access code rather than doing the same thing we do
for normal accesses and checking
  (sctlr & (el == 0 ? SCTLR_TCF0 : SCTLR_TCF))
?

thanks
-- PMM