Re: [PATCH Part2 v5 07/45] x86/traps: Define RMP violation #PF error code

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:58:40AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>  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),

Those are tested against error_code mostly, which is unsigned long so it
looks like you wanna use _BITUL() here. Not that it matters on x86-64
but if we want to be precise...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette