Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/fault: Streamline the fault error_code decoder some more | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:05:11 -0800 |
| |
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 8:47 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: > >>> vs. (with SGX added as 'G' for testing purposes) >>> >>> [ 0.158849] #PF error code(0001): +P !W !U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.159292] #PF error code(0003): +P +W !U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.159742] #PF error code(0007): +P +W +U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.160190] #PF error code(0025): +P !W +U !S !I +K !G >>> [ 0.160638] #PF error code(0002): !P +W !U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.161087] #PF error code(0004): !P !W +U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.161538] #PF error code(0006): !P +W +U !S !I !K !G >>> [ 0.161992] #PF error code(0014): !P !W +U !S +I !K !G >>> [ 0.162450] #PF error code(0011): +P !W !U !S +I !K !G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8001): +P !W !U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8003): +P +W !U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8007): +P +W +U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8025): +P !W +U !S !I +K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8002): !P +W !U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8004): !P !W +U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8006): !P +W +U !S !I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8014): !P !W +U !S +I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(8011): +P !W !U !S +I !K +G >>> [ 0.162667] #PF error code(0000): !P !W !U !S !I !K !G >>> >> >> Please don’t. The whole reason I added the decoding was to make it easy >> to read without a cheat sheet. This is incomprehensible without >> reference to the code, and I’m familiar with it to begin with. > > Dunno, I can deduct the meaning from the above abbreviations without a > cheat sheet and I'm sure you'll be able to too from now on. All the > letters are very obvious references - to me at least, and brevity and > predictable, fixed-length output matters. > >> How about: >> >> #PF error code: 0001 [PROT read kernel] >> >> #PF error code: 0001 [PROT WRITE kernel] >> >> #PF error code: 0001 [PROT read kernel] >> >> #PF error code: 8011 [PROT INSTR kernel SGX] >> >> This has no noise from unset bits except that we add lowercase “read” >> or “kernel” as appropriate. Even “kernel” seems barely necessary. > > The thing is, the 'noise' from unset bits is actually important > information as well - at least for the major bits: it was a mostly random > choice that Intel defined '1' for write access and not for read access. > >
That’s why I suggested “read,” in lowercase, for reads. Other than that, most of the unset bits are uninteresting. An OOPS is so likely to be a kernel fault that it’s barely worth mentioning, and I even added a whole separate diagnostic for user oopses. Similarly, I don’t think we need to remind the reader that an oops wasn’t an SGX error or that it wasn’t a PK error. So I think my idea highlights the interesting bits and avoids distraction from the uninteresting bits.
| |