* [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
@ 2021-04-22 15:44 Alex Bennée
2021-04-22 16:10 ` Richard Henderson
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Alex Bennée @ 2021-04-22 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: qemu-devel
Cc: fam, Thomas Huth, berrange, David Hildenbrand, Cornelia Huck,
Richard Henderson, f4bug, Laurent Vivier,
open list:S390 general arch...,
stefanha, crosa, pbonzini, Alex Bennée, aurelien
We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
executing signal return code on signal stacks.
Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
---
target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
--- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
+++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
#if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
flags = page_get_flags(addr);
- if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
+ if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
env->__excp_addr = addr;
flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
if (nonfault) {
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-22 15:44 [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability Alex Bennée
@ 2021-04-22 16:10 ` Richard Henderson
2021-04-22 16:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-23 12:22 ` Cornelia Huck
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Henderson @ 2021-04-22 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Bennée, qemu-devel
Cc: fam, Thomas Huth, berrange, David Hildenbrand, Cornelia Huck,
f4bug, Laurent Vivier, open list:S390 general arch...,
stefanha, crosa, pbonzini, aurelien
On 4/22/21 8:44 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
> executing signal return code on signal stacks.
>
> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
> Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> ---
> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
r~
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-22 15:44 [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability Alex Bennée
2021-04-22 16:10 ` Richard Henderson
@ 2021-04-22 16:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-23 12:22 ` Cornelia Huck
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand @ 2021-04-22 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Bennée, qemu-devel
Cc: fam, Thomas Huth, berrange, Cornelia Huck, Richard Henderson,
f4bug, Laurent Vivier, open list:S390 general arch...,
stefanha, crosa, pbonzini, aurelien
On 22.04.21 17:44, Alex Bennée wrote:
> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
> executing signal return code on signal stacks.
>
> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
> Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> ---
> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> flags = page_get_flags(addr);
> - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
> + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
> env->__excp_addr = addr;
> flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
> if (nonfault) {
>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-22 15:44 [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability Alex Bennée
2021-04-22 16:10 ` Richard Henderson
2021-04-22 16:43 ` David Hildenbrand
@ 2021-04-23 12:22 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-23 13:06 ` Peter Maydell
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Cornelia Huck @ 2021-04-23 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alex Bennée
Cc: fam, Peter Maydell, Thomas Huth, berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, qemu-devel, f4bug,
open list:S390 general arch...,
stefanha, crosa, pbonzini, aurelien, Laurent Vivier
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100
Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
> executing signal return code on signal stacks.
>
> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
> Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> ---
> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> flags = page_get_flags(addr);
> - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
> + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
> env->__excp_addr = addr;
> flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
> if (nonfault) {
What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
If this is going to be in 6.1, I'll add cc:stable when queuing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-23 12:22 ` Cornelia Huck
@ 2021-04-23 13:06 ` Peter Maydell
2021-04-23 13:28 ` Thomas Huth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2021-04-23 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cornelia Huck
Cc: Fam Zheng, Thomas Huth, Daniel P. Berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, QEMU Developers, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
open list:S390 general arch...,
Stefan Hajnoczi, Cleber Rosa, Paolo Bonzini, Alex Bennée,
Aurelien Jarno, Laurent Vivier
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100
> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> > We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
> > because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
> > executing signal return code on signal stacks.
> >
> > Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
> > Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> > ---
> > target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> > index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
> > --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> > +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> > flags = page_get_flags(addr);
> > - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
> > + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
> > env->__excp_addr = addr;
> > flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
> > if (nonfault) {
>
> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.
thanks
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-23 13:06 ` Peter Maydell
@ 2021-04-23 13:28 ` Thomas Huth
2021-04-23 13:52 ` Cornelia Huck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Huth @ 2021-04-23 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Maydell, Cornelia Huck
Cc: Fam Zheng, Daniel P. Berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
QEMU Developers, open list:S390 general arch...,
Stefan Hajnoczi, Cleber Rosa, Paolo Bonzini, Alex Bennée,
Aurelien Jarno, Laurent Vivier
On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100
>> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
>>> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
>>> executing signal return code on signal stacks.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
>>> Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
>>> ---
>>> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
>>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
>>>
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>> flags = page_get_flags(addr);
>>> - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
>>> + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
>>> env->__excp_addr = addr;
>>> flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
>>> if (nonfault) {
>>
>> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
>> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
>
> What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
> hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
> just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
> does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
> crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
> annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
> later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.
IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so the
damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest to
include it in a rc5.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-23 13:28 ` Thomas Huth
@ 2021-04-23 13:52 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-23 13:56 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Cornelia Huck @ 2021-04-23 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Huth, Peter Maydell
Cc: Fam Zheng, Daniel P. Berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
QEMU Developers, open list:S390 general arch...,
Stefan Hajnoczi, Cleber Rosa, Paolo Bonzini, Alex Bennée,
Aurelien Jarno, Laurent Vivier
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:19 +0200
Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:44:27 +0100
> >> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We can remove PAGE_WRITE when (internally) marking a page read-only
> >>> because it contains translated code. This can get confused when we are
> >>> executing signal return code on signal stacks.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: e56552cf07 ("target/s390x: Implement the MVPG condition-code-option bit")
> >>> Found-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> >>> Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> >>> ---
> >>> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> >>> index 12e84a4285..f6a7d29273 100644
> >>> --- a/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> >>> +++ b/target/s390x/mem_helper.c
> >>> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static int s390_probe_access(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, int size,
> >>>
> >>> #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
> >>> flags = page_get_flags(addr);
> >>> - if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE))) {
> >>> + if (!(flags & (access_type == MMU_DATA_LOAD ? PAGE_READ : PAGE_WRITE_ORG))) {
> >>> env->__excp_addr = addr;
> >>> flags = (flags & PAGE_VALID) ? PGM_PROTECTION : PGM_ADDRESSING;
> >>> if (nonfault) {
> >>
> >> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
> >> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
> >
> > What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
> > hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
> > just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
> > does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
> > crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
> > annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
> > later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.
>
> IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so the
> damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest to
> include it in a rc5.
Exactly, the benefits outweigh the risk IMHO.
Peter, do you want to pick this one directly, or should I send you a pull req?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-23 13:52 ` Cornelia Huck
@ 2021-04-23 13:56 ` Peter Maydell
2021-04-23 15:44 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2021-04-23 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cornelia Huck
Cc: Fam Zheng, Thomas Huth, Daniel P. Berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, QEMU Developers, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
open list:S390 general arch...,
Stefan Hajnoczi, Cleber Rosa, Paolo Bonzini, Alex Bennée,
Aurelien Jarno, Laurent Vivier
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:52, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:19 +0200
> Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
> > >> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
> > >
> > > What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
> > > hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
> > > just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
> > > does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
> > > crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
> > > annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
> > > later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.
> >
> > IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so the
> > damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest to
> > include it in a rc5.
>
> Exactly, the benefits outweigh the risk IMHO.
>
> Peter, do you want to pick this one directly, or should I send you a pull req?
I'll pick it directly, thanks.
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability
2021-04-23 13:56 ` Peter Maydell
@ 2021-04-23 15:44 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2021-04-23 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cornelia Huck
Cc: Fam Zheng, Thomas Huth, Daniel P. Berrange, David Hildenbrand,
Richard Henderson, QEMU Developers, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
open list:S390 general arch...,
Stefan Hajnoczi, Cleber Rosa, Paolo Bonzini, Alex Bennée,
Aurelien Jarno, Laurent Vivier
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:56, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 14:52, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:28:19 +0200
> > Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 23/04/2021 15.06, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 13:22, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >> What's the verdict on this one? I plan to queue this to s390-next; but
> > > >> if we end up doing an -rc5, it might qualify as a regression fix.
> > > >
> > > > What's your opinion? I think we do need an rc5 for the network backend
> > > > hotplug crash. I don't want to open the doors for lots of new fixes
> > > > just because we've got another rc, but on the other hand this one
> > > > does look like it's a pretty small and safe fix, and letting intermittent
> > > > crash bugs out into the wild seems like it could lead to a lot of
> > > > annoying re-investigation of the same bug if it's reported by users
> > > > later... So I kind of lean towards putting it in rc5.
> > >
> > > IMHO: It's in a s390x-only file, within a #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY ... so the
> > > damage this could do is very, very limited, indeed. Thus I'd also suggest to
> > > include it in a rc5.
> >
> > Exactly, the benefits outweigh the risk IMHO.
> >
> > Peter, do you want to pick this one directly, or should I send you a pull req?
>
> I'll pick it directly, thanks.
...applied to target-arm.next, thanks.
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-23 15:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-04-22 15:44 [PATCH] target/s390x: fix s390_probe_access to check PAGE_WRITE_ORG for writeability Alex Bennée
2021-04-22 16:10 ` Richard Henderson
2021-04-22 16:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-23 12:22 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-23 13:06 ` Peter Maydell
2021-04-23 13:28 ` Thomas Huth
2021-04-23 13:52 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-23 13:56 ` Peter Maydell
2021-04-23 15:44 ` Peter Maydell
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.