Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 11:18:48 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, bp@alien8.de,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, yu-cheng.yu@intel.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fault: Decode and print #PF oops in human readable
 form
Message-ID: <20181207191848.GD10404@linux.intel.com>
References: <CAHk-=whk_fsnxVMvF1T2fFCaP2WrvSybABrLQCWLJyCvHw6NKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181207184423.1962-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
 <CAHk-=whMhJ84SqnUa0qAV-xkP6ghictLv8RLxOrp8mXKfp5zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whMhJ84SqnUa0qAV-xkP6ghictLv8RLxOrp8mXKfp5zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:52:49AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:44 AM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remove the per-bit decoding of the error code and instead print the raw
> > error code followed by a brief description of what caused the fault, the
> > effective privilege level of the faulting access, and whether the fault
> > originated in user code or kernel code.
> 
> This doesn't quite work as-is, though.
> 
> For example, at least the PK bit is independent of the other bits and
> would be interesting in the human-legible version, but doesn't show up
> there at all.

Heh, I actually intentionally omitted protection keys thinking it'd be
superfluous, i.e. "go look at the error code bits if you care that much".

> That said, I think the end result might be more legible than the
> previous version, so this approach may well be good, it just needs at
> least that "permissions violation"  part to be extended with whether
> it was PK or not.
> 
> Also, shouldn't we show the SGX bit too as some kind of "during SGX"
> extension on the "in user/kernel space" part?

The SGX bit isn't defined in mainline yet.  But yeah, I can see how
printing e.g. "SGX EPCM violation" would be a lot more helpful than
a vanilla "permissions violation".  I'll send a v2 with the PK bit
added and a slightly reworded changelog.