Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an error

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:38:34AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 9/2/2022 9:30 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 09:08:23AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> Hi Jarkko,
> >>
> >> On 9/2/2022 8:53 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:26:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>> +	if (ret)
> >>>> +		pr_err("%ld unsanitized pages\n", left_dirty);
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I know, should be 'left_dirty'. I just quickly drafted
> >>> the patch for the email.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No problem - you did mention that it was an informal patch.
> >>
> >> (btw ... also watch out for the long local parameter returned
> >> as an unsigned long and the signed vs unsigned printing
> >> format string.) I also continue to recommend that you trim
> > 
> > Point taken.
> > 
> >> that backtrace ... this patch is heading to x86 area where
> >> this is required.
> > 
> > Should I just cut the whole stack trace, and leave the
> > part before it?
> 
> The trace is printed because of a WARN_ON() in the code.
> I do not think there is anything very helpful in that trace.
> I think the only helpful parts are the WARN itself that includes
> the line number and then information on which kernel it was
> encountered on.
> 
> How about something like (please note the FIXME within):
> 
> "
> Paul reported the following WARN while running kernel vFIXME:
>   WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 83 at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c:401 ksgxd+0x1b7/0x1d0

Yeah, this is a great idea, the use of WARN() is the whole point.
Thank you.

BR, Jarkko