linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v9 11/51] x86/traps: 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]

Message-ID: <7bf4b9a6-d75b-8e96-14cf-79df2fae8694@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 09:26:58 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        jroedel@...e.de, thomas.lendacky@....com, hpa@...or.com,
        ardb@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
        vkuznets@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, slp@...hat.com, pgonda@...gle.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com, tobin@....com,
        bp@...en8.de, vbabka@...e.cz, kirill@...temov.name,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, tony.luck@...el.com, marcorr@...gle.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, alpergun@...gle.com,
        dgilbert@...hat.com, jarkko@...nel.org, ashish.kalra@....com,
        nikunj.dadhania@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com,
        zhi.a.wang@...el.com, Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 11/51] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error
 code

On 6/11/23 21:25, Michael Roth wrote:
> From: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
> 
> Bit 31 in the page fault-error bit will be set when processor encounters
> an RMP violation.
> 
> While at it, use the BIT_ULL() macro.
...
>  enum x86_pf_error_code {
> -	X86_PF_PROT	=		1 << 0,
> -	X86_PF_WRITE	=		1 << 1,
> -	X86_PF_USER	=		1 << 2,
> -	X86_PF_RSVD	=		1 << 3,
> -	X86_PF_INSTR	=		1 << 4,
> -	X86_PF_PK	=		1 << 5,
> -	X86_PF_SGX	=		1 << 15,
> +	X86_PF_PROT	=		BIT(0),
> +	X86_PF_WRITE	=		BIT(1),
> +	X86_PF_USER	=		BIT(2),
> +	X86_PF_RSVD	=		BIT(3),
> +	X86_PF_INSTR	=		BIT(4),
> +	X86_PF_PK	=		BIT(5),
> +	X86_PF_SGX	=		BIT(15),
> +	X86_PF_RMP	=		BIT(31),
>  };

It would be nice if the changelog "BIT_ULL()" matched the code "BIT()".  :)

With that fixed,

Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>