linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: s390: use defines for execution controls

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9aa04d37-638a-d326-3973-e43439a49216@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:54:29 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] KVM: s390: use defines for execution controls

Am 14.03.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> On 03/13/2017 11:48 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Let's replace the bitmasks by defines. Reconstructed from code, comments
>> and commit messages.
>>
>> Tried to keep the defines short and map them to feature names. In case
>> they don't completely map to features, keep them in the stye of ICTL
>> defines.
>>
>> This effectively drops all "U" from the existing numbers. I think this
>> should be fine (as similarly done for e.g. ICTL defines).
> 
> The patch does change the binary result and this seems to be related to the
> U removal. But as far as I can tell this is fine, its just some subtle 
> undefined behaviour change between unsigned/signed which we do not care
> about.
> 
> 
>>
>> I am not 100% sure about the ECA_MVPGI and ECA_PROTEXCI bits as they are
>> always used in pairs.
> 
> Just historic baggage, e.g. in 3.10 we set eca to 0xC1002001 and over
> time we split those out piece by piece. Those two are just the last men 
> standing.
> 
> I think I am going to apply this with some minor changes (EC* names). Ok
> when I do the changes?
> 

Sure, feel free to modify!

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David