Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/8] x86/mm: clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"

[Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>]

On 09/07/2018 03:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 
>> For part of the page fault handler, "error_code" does exactly
>> match PFEC.  But, during later parts, it diverges and starts to
>> mean something a bit different.
>> 
>> Give it two names for its two jobs.
> How hard would it be to just remove sw_error_code instead?  It seems
> like it adds little value and much confusion.

I think it would be really nice to have hw_error_code stand by itself
and be limited in scope to just __do_page_fault() and then have
FAULT_FLAG_* for everything else.

But, I was a little scared off of that.  For one, I think we fill in
signal info with error_code, which makes it nominally part of the ABI.
So, I wanted to muck with it as little as possible in this set.

But, if we just said that
1. hw_error_code goes out to userspace, always, and
2. We drive all kernel behavior off of FAULT_FLAG_*, not error_code,
   I think we can get away with it.

> I’m also unconvinced that the warning is terribly useful. We’re going
> to oops when this happens anyway.

One thing I wanted to get out of the warning was the contents of
hw_error_code before we go screwing with it.  I also don't mind a nice,
clarifying warning showing up just before an oops.  Maybe it could be a
pr_warn/err() instead of a full warning?