Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 15:13:08 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Ashish Kalra <Ashish.Kalra@amd.com>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, jmattson@google.com, luto@kernel.org,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, slp@redhat.com, pgonda@google.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com,
        rientjes@google.com, dovmurik@linux.ibm.com, tobin@ibm.com,
        michael.roth@amd.com, vbabka@suse.cz, kirill@shutemov.name,
        ak@linux.intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, marcorr@google.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com, alpergun@google.com,
        dgilbert@redhat.com, jarkko@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH Part2 v6 08/49] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error
 code
Message-ID: <YvEL5CxHXoE1fWU3@zn.tnic>
References: <cover.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
 <5328a76b3fab1f20b3ffc400ca2402bec19d9700.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5328a76b3fab1f20b3ffc400ca2402bec19d9700.1655761627.git.ashish.kalra@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

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