On 2018-09-26 11:53, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:38:46 +0200
> Thomas Huth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The uint16_t member cu_type of struct SenseId is not naturally aligned,
>> and since the struct is marked with QEMU_PACKED, this can lead to
>> unaligned memory accesses - which does not work on architectures like
>> Sparc. Thus remove the QEMU_PACKED here and rather copy the struct
>> byte by byte when we do copy_sense_id_to_guest().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> hw/s390x/css.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++----------------
>> include/hw/s390x/css.h | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/css.c b/hw/s390x/css.c
>> index 5a9fe45..0e51b85 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/css.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/css.c
>> @@ -750,20 +750,20 @@ static void sch_handle_halt_func(SubchDev *sch)
>>
>> }
>>
>> -static void copy_sense_id_to_guest(SenseId *dest, SenseId *src)
>> +static void copy_sense_id_to_guest(uint8_t *dest, SenseId *src)
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> - dest->reserved = src->reserved;
>> - dest->cu_type = cpu_to_be16(src->cu_type);
>> - dest->cu_model = src->cu_model;
>> - dest->dev_type = cpu_to_be16(src->dev_type);
>> - dest->dev_model = src->dev_model;
>> - dest->unused = src->unused;
>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dest->ciw); i++) {
>> - dest->ciw[i].type = src->ciw[i].type;
>> - dest->ciw[i].command = src->ciw[i].command;
>> - dest->ciw[i].count = cpu_to_be16(src->ciw[i].count);
>> + dest[0] = src->reserved;
>> + stw_be_p(dest + 1, src->cu_type);
>> + dest[3] = src->cu_model;
>> + stw_be_p(dest + 4, src->dev_type);
>> + dest[6] = src->dev_model;
>> + dest[7] = src->unused;
>
> The doc states that byte 7 always consists of zeroes... but copying the
> 'unused' field is probably less magic than just writing 0.
At least this is also what the previous code was doing. I don't think we
should change it in this patch here.
>> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(src->ciw); i++) {
>> + dest[8 + i * 4] = src->ciw[i].type;
>> + dest[9 + i * 4] = src->ciw[i].command;
>> + stw_be_p(dest + 10 + i * 4, src->ciw[i].count);
>> }
>> }
>
> It seems our only choice is which kind of ugly we prefer when fixing
> this issue... at least the usage of stw_be_p makes this look a bit
> better :)
>
> But maybe add a comment
>
> /*
> * As the SenseId struct cannot be packed (would cause unaligned
> * accesses), we have to copy the individual fields to an unstructured
> * area using the correct layout.
> */
>
> so that we don't wonder why it looks like this in the future?
Sure, could you add it when picking up the patch? Or shall I respin?
Thomas
