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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 19:30:39 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vijay Dhanraj <vijay.dhanraj@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/sgx: Do not consider unsanitized pages an
 error

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?

BR, Jarkko