Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 08/49] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error code
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date: 2022-08-08 13:13:27
Also in:
kvm, linux-crypto, linux-mm, lkml
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:03:27PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -12,15 +14,17 @@ * bit 4 == 1: fault was an instruction fetch * bit 5 == 1: protection keys block access * bit 15 == 1: SGX MMU page-fault + * bit 31 == 1: fault was due to RMP violation */ 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_ULL(0), + X86_PF_WRITE = BIT_ULL(1), + X86_PF_USER = BIT_ULL(2), + X86_PF_RSVD = BIT_ULL(3), + X86_PF_INSTR = BIT_ULL(4), + X86_PF_PK = BIT_ULL(5), + X86_PF_SGX = BIT_ULL(15), + X86_PF_RMP = BIT_ULL(31),
Yeah, I remember dhansen asked for those to use the BIT() macro but the
_ULL is an overkill. Those PF flags are 32 and they fit in an unsigned
int.
But we don't have BUT_UI() so I guess the next best thing - BIT() -
which uses UL internally, should be good enough.
So pls use BIT() here - not BIT_ULL().
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette