[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[PULL 19/45] linux-user: Fix guest_addr_valid vs reserved_va

From: Peter Maydell
Subject: [PULL 19/45] linux-user: Fix guest_addr_valid vs reserved_va
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 12:58:34 +0000

From: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>

We must always use GUEST_ADDR_MAX, because even 32-bit hosts can
use -R <reserved_va> to restrict the memory address of the guest.

Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Message-id: 20210210000223.884088-11-richard.henderson@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
 include/exec/cpu_ldst.h | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h b/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h
index 4e6ef3d5429..e62f4fba001 100644
--- a/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h
+++ b/include/exec/cpu_ldst.h
@@ -72,11 +72,10 @@ typedef uint64_t abi_ptr;
 /* All direct uses of g2h and h2g need to go away for usermode softmmu.  */
 #define g2h(x) ((void *)((uintptr_t)(abi_ptr)(x) + guest_base))
-#define guest_addr_valid(x) (1)
-#define guest_addr_valid(x) ((x) <= GUEST_ADDR_MAX)
+static inline bool guest_addr_valid(abi_ulong x)
+    return x <= GUEST_ADDR_MAX;
 static inline bool guest_range_valid(abi_ulong start, abi_ulong len)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]