Re: [PATCH] x86: use enum instead of literals for trap values
From: Kees Cook
Date: Fri Mar 09 2012 - 11:30:49 EST
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The traps are referred to by their numbers and it can be difficult to
>> understand them while reading the code without context. This patch adds
>> enumeration of the trap numbers and replaces the numbers with the correct
>> enum for x86.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>> I've updated Aditya Kali's earlier patch:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/22/328
>> ---
>> arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h | 25 +++++++++
>> arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c | 2 +-
>> arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
>> index 0012d09..768afb2 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/traps.h
>> @@ -89,4 +89,29 @@ asmlinkage void smp_thermal_interrupt(void);
>> asmlinkage void mce_threshold_interrupt(void);
>> #endif
>>
>> +/* Interrupts/Exceptions */
>> +enum {
>> + INTR_DIV_BY_ZERO = 0, /* 0 */
>> + INTR_DEBUG, /* 1 */
>> + INTR_NMI, /* 2 */
>> + INTR_BREAKPOINT, /* 3 */
>> + INTR_OVERFLOW, /* 4 */
>> + INTR_BOUNDS_CHECK, /* 5 */
>> + INTR_INVALID_OP, /* 6 */
>> + INTR_NO_DEV, /* 7 */
>> + INTR_DBL_FAULT, /* 8 */
>> + INTR_SEG_OVERRUN, /* 9 */
>> + INTR_INVALID_TSS, /* 10 */
>> + INTR_NO_SEG, /* 11 */
>> + INTR_STACK_FAULT, /* 12 */
>> + INTR_GPF, /* 13 */
>> + INTR_PAGE_FAULT, /* 14 */
>> + INTR_SPURIOUS, /* 15 */
>> + INTR_COPROCESSOR, /* 16 */
>> + INTR_ALIGNMENT, /* 17 */
>> + INTR_MCE, /* 18 */
>> + INTR_SIMD_COPROCESSOR, /* 19 */
>> + INTR_IRET = 32, /* 32 */
>> +};
>
>> @@ -453,14 +458,15 @@ dotraplinkage void __kprobes do_debug(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
>> /*
>> * Note that we play around with the 'TS' bit in an attempt to get
>> * the correct behaviour even in the presence of the asynchronous
>> - * IRQ13 behaviour
>> + * INTR_GPF behaviour
>> */
>
>> @@ -529,8 +535,9 @@ void math_error(struct pt_regs *regs, int error_code, int trapnr)
>> info.si_code = FPE_FLTRES;
>> } else {
>> /*
>> - * If we're using IRQ 13, or supposedly even some trap 16
>> - * implementations, it's possible we get a spurious trap...
>> + * If we're using INTR_GPF, or supposedly even some trap
>> + * INTR_COPROCESSOR implementations, it's possible we get a
>> + * spurious trap...
>
> There's confusion in this patch between legacy IRQ #13 [vector
> 0x20 + 13 ] and #GPF general protection fault [vector 13] - they
> are not the same.
>
> Furthermore, the INTR_ naming is not ideal either for (most of)
> these entries: for example we don't think of a page fault as an
> asynchronous interrupt entity - we think of it as a more or less
> synchronous fault/exception.
>
> Thus a X86_*_FAULT_VEC naming pattern might be better:
>
> X86_PAGE_FAULT_VEC
> X86_DOUBLE_FAULT_VEC
>
> (With X86_*_EXCEPTION_VEC applied where appropriate.)
Oh, hrm, my v2 missed this bit about EXCEPTION. What should I use as
the canonical source for "FAULT" vs "EXCEPTION" for this enum?
> I don't disagree with the general principle of the cleanup
> otherwise, the numeric literals are often ambiguous and
> confusing - as the trap 13 - irq 13 mixup above shows.
Right, and leaves me a bit confused too. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/