linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH 05/30] x86: define RMP violation #PF error code

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]

Date:   Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:32:59 -0500
From:   Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     brijesh.singh@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH 05/30] x86: define RMP violation #PF error code


On 3/24/21 1:03 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
>> index 10b1de500ab1..107f9d947e8d 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h
>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>   *   bit 4 ==				1: fault was an instruction fetch
>>   *   bit 5 ==				1: protection keys block access
>>   *   bit 15 ==				1: SGX MMU page-fault
>> + *   bit 31 ==				1: fault was an RMP violation
>>   */
>>  enum x86_pf_error_code {
>>  	X86_PF_PROT	=		1 << 0,
>> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ enum x86_pf_error_code {
>>  	X86_PF_INSTR	=		1 << 4,
>>  	X86_PF_PK	=		1 << 5,
>>  	X86_PF_SGX	=		1 << 15,
>> +	X86_PF_RMP	=		1ull << 31,
>>  };
> Man, I hope AMD and Intel are talking to each other about these bits.  :)
>
> Either way, this is hitting the limits of what I know about how enums
> are implemented.  I had internalized that they are just an 'int', but
> that doesn't seem quite right.  It sounds like they must be implemented
> using *an* integer type, but not necessarily 'int' itself.
>
> Either way, '1<<31' doesn't fit in a 32-bit signed int.  But, gcc at
> least doesn't seem to blow the enum up into a 64-bit type, which is nice.
>
> Could we at least start declaring these with BIT()?


Sure, I can bit the BIT() macro to define the bits. Do you want me to
update all of the fault codes to use BIT() or just the one I am adding
in this patch ?