linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/25] x86, pkeys: new page fault error code bit: PF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1510011351150.4500@nanos>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 13:54:05 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc:	borntraeger@...ibm.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/25] x86, pkeys: new page fault error code bit: PF_PK

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Dave Hansen wrote:
>  
>  /*
> @@ -916,7 +918,10 @@ static int spurious_fault_check(unsigned
>  
>  	if ((error_code & PF_INSTR) && !pte_exec(*pte))
>  		return 0;
> -
> +	/*
> +	 * Note: We do not do lazy flushing on protection key
> +	 * changes, so no spurious fault will ever set PF_PK.
> +	 */

It might be a bit more clear to have:

   	/* Comment .... */
  	if ((error_code & PF_PK))
  		return 1;

  	return 1;

That way the comment is associated to obviously redundant code, but
it's easier to read, especially if we add some new PF_ thingy after
that.

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/