| Date | Mon, 8 Aug 2022 15:13:08 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 08/49] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error code |
| |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 11:03:27PM +0000, Ashish Kalra wrote: > @@ -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
|