linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] x86/nmi: Extend the registration interface to include the NMI-source vector

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: <0982b21a-6861-4955-a6a4-4c9ee1aa5a72@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 11:19:20 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
 "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jacob Pan <jacob.pan@...ux.microsoft.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
 Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
 kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] x86/nmi: Extend the registration interface to
 include the NMI-source vector

On 6/3/25 11:02, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> The 3rd parameter pertains to handler "flags". The only flag in use
> right now is NMI_FLAG_FIRST. Assuming that more flags might get added
> later, the 0 should probably correspond to NMI_FLAG_NONE. Agree?
> 
> The other option would be NMI_FLAG_LAST, which would be the opposite of
> NMI_FLAG_FIRST, but that seems shortsighted.
I don't feel as strongly about the flags. But this code has been there
for over a decade as-is, so I don't think we need to be planning to add
a bunch more flags.