Re: [PATCH 6/5] x86/fault: Clean up the page fault oops decoder a bit

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 11:22:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:32 AM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx> 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.