Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1567715 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-26 22:30 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-01-29 16:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH 1/3] intel_sgx: do not use BUG() in sgx_free_page() Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-26 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] intel_sgx: do not use BUG() in sgx_free_page() Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/3] intel_sgx: do not use BUG() in sgx_free_page() Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-29 16:20 +0100
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-26 22:30 +0100 |
| Subject | [PATCH 1/3] intel_sgx: do not use BUG() in sgx_free_page() |
| Message-ID | <t3ZMe-3YK-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
EREMOVE fails on non-EPC page or when a SECS page with children is to be
removed. These do not happen if the driver is working correctly. Log the
error but do not crash the driver.
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
index d073057..7f73ac7 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
@@ -551,10 +551,8 @@ void sgx_free_page(struct sgx_epc_page *entry,
ret = __eremove(epc);
sgx_put_epc_page(epc);
- if (ret) {
- pr_err("EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
- BUG();
- }
+ if (ret)
+ sgx_err(encl, "EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
}
spin_lock(&sgx_free_list_lock);
--
2.9.3
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-27 16:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t4gWK-5Xr-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1567715 |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> EREMOVE fails on non-EPC page or when a SECS page with children is to be
> removed. These do not happen if the driver is working correctly. Log the
> error but do not crash the driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> index d073057..7f73ac7 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> @@ -551,10 +551,8 @@ void sgx_free_page(struct sgx_epc_page *entry,
> ret = __eremove(epc);
> sgx_put_epc_page(epc);
>
> - if (ret) {
> - pr_err("EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
> - BUG();
> - }
> + if (ret)
> + sgx_err(encl, "EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
Do you have something like critical level? For me seems reasonable to
increase the level of message if BUG() was somehow related to actual
situation.
> }
>
> spin_lock(&sgx_free_list_lock);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-29 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t4ZqO-cH-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1568464 |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:45:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > EREMOVE fails on non-EPC page or when a SECS page with children is to be
> > removed. These do not happen if the driver is working correctly. Log the
> > error but do not crash the driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c | 6 ++----
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> > index d073057..7f73ac7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_sgx_page_cache.c
> > @@ -551,10 +551,8 @@ void sgx_free_page(struct sgx_epc_page *entry,
> > ret = __eremove(epc);
> > sgx_put_epc_page(epc);
> >
> > - if (ret) {
> > - pr_err("EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
> > - BUG();
> > - }
> > + if (ret)
> > + sgx_err(encl, "EREMOVE returned %d\n", ret);
>
> Do you have something like critical level? For me seems reasonable to
> increase the level of message if BUG() was somehow related to actual
> situation.
Hmm... I think that would make sense. This could only happen when
the driver implementation is working incorrectly.
/Jarkko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web