linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv10 10/15] x86/mm, iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVM mutually exclusive

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: <Y089x212wn0KMPAx@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 16:59:03 -0700
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "Bharata B Rao" <bharata@....com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv10 10/15] x86/mm, iommu/sva: Make LAM and SVM mutually
 exclusive

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:35:37AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > >  
> > >  /* Uprobes on this MM assume 32-bit code */
> > > -#define MM_CONTEXT_UPROBE_IA32	BIT(0)
> > > +#define MM_CONTEXT_UPROBE_IA32		BIT(0)
> > >  /* vsyscall page is accessible on this MM */
> > > -#define MM_CONTEXT_HAS_VSYSCALL	BIT(1)
> > > +#define MM_CONTEXT_HAS_VSYSCALL		BIT(1)
> > 
> > Nit: Looks like the two above format changes got in here :-)
> 
> That's side effect of keeping the new longer flag aligned to the rest.
> 
> A separate patch looks like an overkill, no?

Agree, just thought i'll flag it, but I don't think a new patch is
required.