linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] powerpc/watchpoint: Move DAWR detection logic outside of hw

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: <59ac33ed-4ed3-2c92-7b0b-1d14abf7186b@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 16:38:17 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        christophe.leroy@....fr
Cc:     mpe@...erman.id.au, mikey@...ling.org, paulus@...ba.org,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pedromfc@...ux.ibm.com,
        rogealve@...ux.ibm.com, jniethe5@...il.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] powerpc/watchpoint: Move DAWR detection logic
 outside of hw_breakpoint.c

Hi Christophe,

>> +static int cache_op_size(void)
>> +{
>> +#ifdef __powerpc64__
>> +    return ppc64_caches.l1d.block_size;
>> +#else
>> +    return L1_CACHE_BYTES;
>> +#endif
>> +}
> 
> You've got l1_dcache_bytes() in arch/powerpc/include/asm/cache.h to do that.
> 
>> +
>> +void wp_get_instr_detail(struct pt_regs *regs, struct ppc_inst *instr,
>> +             int *type, int *size, unsigned long *ea)
>> +{
>> +    struct instruction_op op;
>> +
>> +    if (__get_user_instr_inatomic(*instr, (void __user *)regs->nip))
>> +        return;
>> +
>> +    analyse_instr(&op, regs, *instr);
>> +    *type = GETTYPE(op.type);
>> +    *ea = op.ea;
>> +#ifdef __powerpc64__
>> +    if (!(regs->msr & MSR_64BIT))
>> +        *ea &= 0xffffffffUL;
>> +#endif
> 
> This #ifdef is unneeded, it should build fine on a 32 bits too.

This patch is just a code movement from one file to another.
I don't really change the logic. Would you mind if I do a
separate patch for these changes (not a part of this series)?

Thanks for review,
Ravi