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: <560D6B06.6040505@sr71.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:19:02 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
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 10/01/2015 04:54 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 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.

Agreed, that's a nicer way to do it.  I'll fix it up.
--
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/