| commit | ab546bd23856866411ff1b2ffaedabdc360e69df | |
| author | Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> | |
| Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:22:05 +0000 (20 22:22 +0100) | ||
| committer | Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> | |
| Thu, 21 May 2020 19:00:18 +0000 (21 20:00 +0100) | ||
| tree | 33604947d5527660283edc2db10b817deacacb64 | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 62f141a426d27c15555714a2c2967045b43d9a4a | commitdiff |
linux-user/arm: Handle invalid arm-specific syscalls correctly
The kernel has different handling for syscalls with invalid
numbers that are in the "arm-specific" range 0x9f0000 and up:
* 0x9f0000..0x9f07ff return -ENOSYS if not implemented
* other out of range syscalls cause a SIGILL
(see the kernel's arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:arm_syscall())
Implement this distinction. (Note that our code doesn't look
quite like the kernel's, because we have removed the
0x900000 prefix by this point, whereas the kernel retains
it in arm_syscall().)
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-id: 20200420212206.12776-4-peter.maydell@linaro.org
The kernel has different handling for syscalls with invalid
numbers that are in the "arm-specific" range 0x9f0000 and up:
* 0x9f0000..0x9f07ff return -ENOSYS if not implemented
* other out of range syscalls cause a SIGILL
(see the kernel's arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:arm_syscall())
Implement this distinction. (Note that our code doesn't look
quite like the kernel's, because we have removed the
0x900000 prefix by this point, whereas the kernel retains
it in arm_syscall().)
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
Message-id: 20200420212206.12776-4-peter.maydell@linaro.org
| linux-user/arm/cpu_loop.c | diffblobblamehistory |