|
Message-ID: <20160815111857.GA2060@svinekod> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:18:58 +0100 From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] arm64: Disable TTBR0_EL1 during normal kernel execution On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:27:43PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > index b5c3933ed441..9283e6b247f9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > @@ -52,6 +52,8 @@ > #define PSR_Z_BIT 0x40000000 > #define PSR_N_BIT 0x80000000 > > +#define _PSR_PAN_BIT 22 Given this is under uapi/, shouldn't we lose the leading underscore to align with other PSR_* definitions? Or should we not have this under uapi/? [...] > + mrs lr, ttbr0_el1 > + tst lr, #0xffff << 48 // Check for the reserved ASID Did we not have a regular register spare here? Not a problem, but using the lr here stands out as unusual. Thanks, Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.