On 22/08/2025 16:54, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 10:57:36AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> Not exactly. I just want to fix the bug whereby the mce handler fails >> to mark the affected page as poisoned because it does not remove the KeyID >> from the address before looking-up the page. > > Lemme ask this differently then: are you ever going to need KeyID in mci_addr? No > >> No one expects to find non-address bits in struct mce addr, > > You're preaching to the choir - I don't know whose idea it was to shove > a key ID in an address value... it sure sounds silly. > >> However, it is allowed to extend struct mce, so adding KeyID or raw MCI ADDR >> later is quite possible. > > Why would you want to do that? Do you have a use case? > > If not, you can drop that whole angle about adding KeyID later Droppin' it.
