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 07:34:14 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     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 3/25/21 7:32 AM, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>>>  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,
>>>  };
...
>> 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 ?

Please update all of them for consistency.