On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:22:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:32 AM Sean Christopherson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > index 2ff25ad33233..510e263c256b 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > @@ -660,8 +660,10 @@ show_fault_oops(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long > > error_code, unsigned long ad > > err_str_append(error_code, err_txt, X86_PF_RSVD, "[RSVD]" ); > > err_str_append(error_code, err_txt, X86_PF_INSTR, "[INSTR]"); > > err_str_append(error_code, err_txt, X86_PF_PK, "[PK]" ); > > - > > - pr_alert("#PF error: %s\n", error_code ? err_txt : "[normal kernel > > read fault]"); > > + err_str_append(~error_code, err_txt, X86_PF_USER, "[KERNEL]"); > > + err_str_append(~error_code, err_txt, X86_PF_WRITE | X86_PF_INSTR, > > + "[READ]"); > > + pr_alert("#PF error code: %s\n", err_txt); > > > > Seems generally nice, but I would suggest making the bit-not-set name > be another parameter to err_str_append(). I'm also slightly uneasy > about making "KERNEL" look like a bit, but I guess it doesn't bother > me too much.
What about "SUPERVISOR" instead of "KERNEL"? It'd be consistent with the SDM and hopefully less likely to be misconstrued as something else. > Want to send a real patch? Will do.
