Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] x86_64: Fix for AMD SME issue

>> @@ -1938,6 +1946,7 @@ x86_64_pud_offset(ulong pgd_pte, ulong vaddr, int > verbose, int IS_XEN) >> FILL_PUD(pud_paddr, PHYSADDR, PAGESIZE()); >> pud = ((ulong *)pud_paddr) + pud_index(vaddr); >> pud_pte = ULONG(machdep->pud + PAGEOFFSET(pud)); >> + pud_pte &= ~machdep->machspec->sme_mask; > > Taking this for example, the pud_pte is masked here.. > > Good questions. This was based on two considerations: [1] ensure to display the printing information as below: ... P4D: 761c01a70 => 761c02067 PUD: 761c02b28 => 16bea5063 ^^^^^^^^^^ Otherwise, it will display the address of PUD with the C-bit. Or Remove the C-bit when printing information? + fprintf(fp, " PUD: %lx => %lx\n", (ulong)pud, pud_pte & ~machdep->machspec->sme_mask);

[2] consider the cases of using hugepage. -On this machine, it supports 1G and 2M hugepage according to the vmcore. > > if (verbose) { >> if (IS_XEN) >> fprintf(fp, " PUD: %lx => %lx [machine]\n", > (ulong)pud, pud_pte); >> @@ -1960,6 +1969,7 @@ x86_64_pmd_offset(ulong pud_pte, ulong vaddr, int > verbose, int IS_XEN) >> ulong pmd_pte; >> >> pmd_paddr = pud_pte & PHYSICAL_PAGE_MASK; >> + pmd_paddr &= ~machdep->machspec->sme_mask; > > and also here the pud_pte is masked again. Is this needed? > > They are needed, otherwise some crash commands may not work well, for example: ... kmem: seek error: kernel virtual address: ffedfea0c627ec28 type: "page inuse"