linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 24 (kvm)

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: <CALMp9eRvoZZ=7P3uCg3oqXzvV1WZc9mkzTJh8+=vmEh7xs5BTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 13:48:07 -0800
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 24 (kvm)

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:30 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:51:31PM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On 1/23/20 10:33 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Changes since 20200123:
> > >
> > > The kvm tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
> > >
> >
> > on i386:
> >
> > ../arch/x86/kvm/x86.h:363:16: warning: right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]
>
> Jim,
>
> This is due to using "unsigned long data" for kvm_dr7_valid() along with
> "return !(data >> 32);" to check for bits being set in 63:32.  Any
> objection to fixing the issue by making @data a u64?  Part of me thinks
> that's the proper behavior anyways, i.e. the helper is purely a reflection
> of the architectural requirements, the caller is responsible for dropping
> bits appropriately based on the current mode.

Why not just change that bad return statement to one of the
alternatives you had suggested previously?

I think "return !(data >> 32)" was the only suggested alternative that
doesn't work. :-)