[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PULL 2/7] target/arm: Merge arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller into sole calle
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
[PULL 2/7] target/arm: Merge arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller into sole caller |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:31:40 +0000 |
From: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
Coverity reports, in sve_zcr_get_valid_len,
"Subtract operation overflows on operands
arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(cpu, start_vq + 1U) and 1U"
First, the aarch32 stub version of arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller,
returning 0, does exactly what Coverity reports. Remove it.
Second, the aarch64 version of arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller has
a set of asserts, but they don't cover the case in question.
Further, there is a fair amount of extra arithmetic needed to
convert from the 0-based zcr register, to the 1-base vq form,
to the 0-based bitmap, and back again. This can be simplified
by leaving the value in the 0-based form.
Finally, use test_bit to simplify the common case, where the
length in the zcr registers is in fact a supported length.
Reported-by: Coverity (CID 1407217)
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <address@hidden>
Message-id: address@hidden
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
---
target/arm/cpu.h | 3 ---
target/arm/cpu64.c | 15 ---------------
target/arm/helper.c | 9 +++++++--
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.h b/target/arm/cpu.h
index e1a66a2d1cc..47d24a53758 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu.h
+++ b/target/arm/cpu.h
@@ -185,12 +185,9 @@ typedef struct {
#ifdef TARGET_AARCH64
# define ARM_MAX_VQ 16
void arm_cpu_sve_finalize(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp);
-uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu, uint32_t vq);
#else
# define ARM_MAX_VQ 1
static inline void arm_cpu_sve_finalize(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp) { }
-static inline uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu, uint32_t vq)
-{ return 0; }
#endif
typedef struct ARMVectorReg {
diff --git a/target/arm/cpu64.c b/target/arm/cpu64.c
index 68baf0482ff..a39d6fcea34 100644
--- a/target/arm/cpu64.c
+++ b/target/arm/cpu64.c
@@ -458,21 +458,6 @@ void arm_cpu_sve_finalize(ARMCPU *cpu, Error **errp)
cpu->sve_max_vq = max_vq;
}
-uint32_t arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(ARMCPU *cpu, uint32_t vq)
-{
- uint32_t bitnum;
-
- /*
- * We allow vq == ARM_MAX_VQ + 1 to be input because the caller may want
- * to find the maximum vq enabled, which may be ARM_MAX_VQ, but this
- * function always returns the next smaller than the input.
- */
- assert(vq && vq <= ARM_MAX_VQ + 1);
-
- bitnum = find_last_bit(cpu->sve_vq_map, vq - 1);
- return bitnum == vq - 1 ? 0 : bitnum + 1;
-}
-
static void cpu_max_get_sve_max_vq(Object *obj, Visitor *v, const char *name,
void *opaque, Error **errp)
{
diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
index be67e2c66d6..a089fb5a690 100644
--- a/target/arm/helper.c
+++ b/target/arm/helper.c
@@ -5363,9 +5363,14 @@ int sve_exception_el(CPUARMState *env, int el)
static uint32_t sve_zcr_get_valid_len(ARMCPU *cpu, uint32_t start_len)
{
- uint32_t start_vq = (start_len & 0xf) + 1;
+ uint32_t end_len;
- return arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller(cpu, start_vq + 1) - 1;
+ end_len = start_len &= 0xf;
+ if (!test_bit(start_len, cpu->sve_vq_map)) {
+ end_len = find_last_bit(cpu->sve_vq_map, start_len);
+ assert(end_len < start_len);
+ }
+ return end_len;
}
/*
--
2.20.1
- [PULL 0/7] target-arm queue, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 1/7] pl031: Expose RTCICR as proper WC register, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 4/7] net/cadence_gem: Set PHY autonegotiation restart status, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 3/7] ssi: xilinx_spips: Skip spi bus update for a few register writes, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 2/7] target/arm: Merge arm_cpu_vq_map_next_smaller into sole caller,
Peter Maydell <=
- [PULL 5/7] target/arm: Do not reject rt == rt2 for strexd, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 6/7] target/arm: Relax r13 restriction for ldrex/strex for v8.0, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- [PULL 7/7] target/arm: Support EL0 v7m msr/mrs for CONFIG_USER_ONLY, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19
- Re: [PULL 0/7] target-arm queue, Peter Maydell, 2019/11/19