[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <754bf1d5-759b-0162-98ae-1800f075b8eb@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:52:47 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"keescook@...gle.com" <keescook@...gle.com>,
"hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/10] x86/mm: do not auto-massage page protections
On 02/22/2018 01:46 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>> +static inline pgprotval_t check_pgprot(pgprot_t pgprot)
>> +{
>> + pgprotval_t massaged_val = massage_pgprot(pgprot);
>> +
>> + WARN_ONCE(pgprot_val(pgprot) != massaged_val,
>> + "attempted to set unsupported pgprot: %016lx "
>> + "bits: %016lx supported: %016lx\n",
>> + pgprot_val(pgprot),
>> + pgprot_val(pgprot) ^ massaged_val,
>> + __supported_pte_mask);
> Perhaps use VM_WARN_ONCE instead to avoid any overhead on production
> systems?
Sounds sane enough. I'll change it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists