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: <519077fa-5fe2-4822-865d-88b8fa0d7648@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 13:24:19 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...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 6/3/2025 11:19 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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.

Sure, I'll leave the flags as-is for now to keep the focus of this
series on NMI-source.