Messages in this thread |  | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:57:10 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] x86/fault: Decode and print #PF oops in human readable form |
| |
On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:14 PM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 2:06 PM Sean Christopherson > <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > Looking at it again, my own personal preference would be to swap the order > > of the #PF lines. > > Yeah, probably. > > Also: > > > [ 160.246820] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffbeef00000000 > > [ 160.247517] #PF: supervisor-privileged instruction fetch from kernel code > > [ 160.248085] #PF: error_code(0x0010) - not-present page > > With this form, I think the "kernel" in the first line is actually > misleading. Yes, it's a #PF for the kernel, but then the "kernel" on > the second line talks about what mode we were in when it happened, so > we have two different meanings of "kernel" on two adjacent lines.
I'm okay with this variant. I have a slight preference for:
#PF: supervisor-privileged instruction fetch from kernel code #PF error_code: 0x0010 [READ]
Which is what we'd get from Sean's patch plus my patch here:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/mm&id=ccfb1941f90153818c07fb1a7dc22121a970d252
Sean, what do you think?
> So maybe that "BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request" message > should be something like > > "BUG: unable to handle page fault for address ffffbeef00000000" > > instead? Does that make sense to people?
Yes please.
|  |