On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 2/26/21 11:52 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > >> We must give a more informative message saying that the page is leaked. > >> Ideally, we'd also make this debuggable by dumping out how many of > >> these pages there have been somewhere. That can wait, though, until we > >> have some kind of stats coming out of the code (there's nothing now). A > >> comment to remind us to do this would be nice. > > Eh, having debugged these several times, the WARN_ONCE in sgx_reset_epc_page() > > is probably sufficient. IIRC, when I hit this, things were either laughably > > broken and every page was failing, or there was another ENCLS failure somewhere > > else that provided additional info. Not saying don't add more debug info, > > rather that it's probably not a priority. > > Minimally, I just want a warning that says, "Whoops, I leaked a page". > Or EREMOVE could even say, "whoops, this *MIGHT* leak a page". > > My beef is mostly that "EREMOVE failed" doesn't tell and end user squat > about what this means for their system. At least if we say "leaked", > they have some inclination that they've got to reboot to get the page back. Oh yeah, no argument there.
