[PATCH v2 1/3] powerpc: sstep: Fix load and update emulation

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 03:19:09PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
> On 2021/02/03 12:08PM, Sandipan Das wrote:
> > The Power ISA says that the fixed-point load and update
> > instructions must neither use R0 for the base address (RA)
> > nor have the destination (RT) and the base address (RA) as
> > the same register. In these cases, the instruction is
> > invalid.

> > However, the following behaviour is observed using some
> > invalid opcodes where RA = RT.
> > 
> > An userspace program using an invalid instruction word like
> > 0xe9ce0001, i.e. "ldu r14, 0(r14)", runs and exits without
> > getting terminated abruptly. The instruction performs the
> > load operation but does not write the effective address to
> > the base address register. 
> 
> While the processor (p8 in my test) doesn't seem to be throwing an 
> exception, I don't think it is necessarily loading the value. Qemu 
> throws an exception though. It's probably best to term the behavior as 
> being undefined.

Power8 does:

  Load with Update Instructions (RA = 0)
    EA is placed into R0.
  Load with Update Instructions (RA = RT)
    EA is placed into RT. The storage operand addressed by EA is
    accessed, but the data returned by the load is discarded.

Power9 does:

  Load with Update Instructions (RA = 0)
    EA is placed into R0.
  Load with Update Instructions (RA = RT)
    The storage operand addressed by EA is accessed. The displacement
    field is added to the data returned by the load and placed into RT.

Both UMs also say

  Invalid Forms
    In general, the POWER9 core handles invalid forms of instructions in
    the manner that is most convenient for the particular case (within
    the scope of meeting the boundedly-undefined definition described in
    the Power ISA). This document specifies the behavior for these
    cases.  However, it is not recommended that software or other system
    facilities make use of the POWER9 behavior in these cases because
    such behavior might be different in another processor that
    implements the Power ISA.

(or POWER8 instead of POWER9 of course).  Always complaining about most
invalid forms seems wise, certainly if not all recent CPUs behave the
same :-)


Segher