linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 09/50] 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: <20231016145518.6vlhsbh5cr2wfzuw@amd.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 09:55:18 -0500
From:   Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <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>,
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        <alpergun@...gle.com>, <jarkko@...nel.org>, <ashish.kalra@....com>,
        <nikunj.dadhania@....com>, <pankaj.gupta@....com>,
        <liam.merwick@...cle.com>, <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 09/50] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error code

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 07:14:07AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/16/23 06:27, Michael Roth wrote:
> > Bit 31 in the page fault-error bit will be set when processor encounters
> > an RMP violation. While at it, use the BIT() macro.
> 
> Any idea where the BIT() use went?  I remember seeing it in earlier
> versions.

Yah... this patch used to convert all the previous definitions over to
using BIT() as part of introducing the new RMP bit. I'm not sure what
happened, but a likely possibility is I hit a merge conflict at some
point due to upstream commit fd5439e0c9, which introduced this change:

  X86_PF_SHSTK    =               1 << 6,

and my brain probably defaulted to using the existing pattern to
resolve it. I'll get this fixed up.

-Mike