Why was 4 chosen for kernel PCID and 6 for user PCID?
No good reason in a backport where PCIDs are only used for Kaiser.

If we continue with those, then we shall need to add Andy Lutomirski's
4.13 commit 6c690ee1 ("x86/mm: Split read_cr3() into read_cr3_pa()
and __read_cr3()"), which deals with the problem of read_cr3() callers
finding stray bits in the cr3 that they expected to be page-aligned;
and for hibernation, his 4.14 commit f34902c5 ("x86/hibernate/64:
Mask off CR3's PCID bits in the saved CR3").

But if 0 is used for kernel PCID, then there's no need to add in those
commits - whenever the kernel looks, it sees 0 in the lower bits; and
0 for kernel seems an obvious choice.

And I naughtily propose 128 for user PCID.  Because there's a place
in _SWITCH_TO_USER_CR3 where it takes note of the need for TLB FLUSH,
but needs to reset that to NOFLUSH for the next occasion.  Currently
it does so with a "movb $(0x80)" into the high byte of the per-cpu
quadword, but that will cause a machine without PCID support to crash.
Now, if %al just happened to have 0x80 in it at that point, on a
machine with PCID support, but 0 on a machine without PCID support...

(That will go badly wrong once the pgd can be at a physical address
above 2^56, but even with 5-level paging, physical goes up to 2^52.)
Acked-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

CVE-2017-5754
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza@canonical.com>