On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:45:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > --- > > 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
