Message ID | 20231016132819.1002933-10-michael.roth@amd.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | Add AMD Secure Nested Paging (SEV-SNP) Hypervisor Support | expand |
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 07:14:07AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 10/16/23 06:27, Michael Roth wrote: > > Bit 31 in the page fault-error bit will be set when processor encounters > > an RMP violation. While at it, use the BIT() macro. > > Any idea where the BIT() use went? I remember seeing it in earlier > versions. Yah... this patch used to convert all the previous definitions over to using BIT() as part of introducing the new RMP bit. I'm not sure what happened, but a likely possibility is I hit a merge conflict at some point due to upstream commit fd5439e0c9, which introduced this change: X86_PF_SHSTK = 1 << 6, and my brain probably defaulted to using the existing pattern to resolve it. I'll get this fixed up. -Mike
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h index afa524325e55..136707d7a961 100644 --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/trap_pf.h @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ #ifndef _ASM_X86_TRAP_PF_H #define _ASM_X86_TRAP_PF_H +#include <linux/bits.h> /* BIT() macro */ + /* * Page fault error code bits: * @@ -13,6 +15,7 @@ * bit 5 == 1: protection keys block access * bit 6 == 1: shadow stack access fault * 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, @@ -23,6 +26,7 @@ enum x86_pf_error_code { X86_PF_PK = 1 << 5, X86_PF_SHSTK = 1 << 6, X86_PF_SGX = 1 << 15, + X86_PF_RMP = 1 << 31, }; #endif /* _ASM_X86_TRAP_PF_H */ diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c index ab778eac1952..7858b9515d4a 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c @@ -547,6 +547,7 @@ show_fault_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, unsigned long ad !(error_code & X86_PF_PROT) ? "not-present page" : (error_code & X86_PF_RSVD) ? "reserved bit violation" : (error_code & X86_PF_PK) ? "protection keys violation" : + (error_code & X86_PF_RMP) ? "RMP violation" : "permissions violation"); if (!(error_code & X86_PF_USER) && user_mode(regs)) {