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: <f9bda668-01e7-8e72-100c-6c8ad40a63e9@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:48:24 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] powerpc/watchpoint: Move DAWR detection logic
 outside of hw_breakpoint.c



Le 25/08/2020 à 13:08, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> 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)?

Sure, do it in a separate patch.

Christophe