[PULL,10/40] linux-user: Fix guest_addr_valid vs reserved_va

Commit Message

Peter Maydell Feb. 16, 2021, 4:16 p.m. UTC

From: Richard Henderson <[e-mail]>

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 <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[e-mail]>
Message-id: [e-mail]
Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <[e-mail]>
---
 include/exec/cpu_ldst.h | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Patch

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))
 
-#if HOST_LONG_BITS <= TARGET_VIRT_ADDR_SPACE_BITS
-#define guest_addr_valid(x) (1)
-#else
-#define guest_addr_valid(x) ((x) <= GUEST_ADDR_MAX)
-#endif
+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)
 {