linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler in the VM v3

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:	Thu, 28 May 2009 18:33:00 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
	"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler
	in the VM v3

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:11:11PM +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:59:34PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Dirty swap cache page is tricky to handle. The page could live both in page
> > cache and swap cache(ie. page is freshly swapped in). So it could be referenced
> > concurrently by 2 types of PTEs: one normal PTE and another swap PTE. We try to
> > handle them consistently by calling try_to_unmap(TTU_IGNORE_HWPOISON) to convert
> > the normal PTEs to swap PTEs, and then
> >         - clear dirty bit to prevent IO
> >         - remove from LRU
> >         - but keep in the swap cache, so that when we return to it on
> >           a later page fault, we know the application is accessing
> >           corrupted data and shall be killed (we installed simple
> >           interception code in do_swap_page to catch it).
> 
> That's a good description. I'll add it as a comment to the code.

OK, thanks.

> > > You haven't waited on writeback here AFAIKS, and have you
> > > *really* verified it is safe to call delete_from_swap_cache?
> > 
> > Good catch. I'll soon submit patches for handling the under
> > read/write IO pages. In this patchset they are simply ignored.
> 
> Yes, we assume the IO device does something sensible with the poisoned
> cache lines and aborts. Later we can likely abort IO requests in a early
> stage on the Linux, but that's more advanced.
> 
> The question is if we need to wait on writeback for correctness? 

Not necessary. Because I'm going to add a me_writeback() handler.

Then the writeback pages simply won't reach here. And it won't
magically go into writeback state, since the page has been locked.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> We still don't want to crash if we take a page away that is currently
> writebacked.
> 
> My original assumption was that taking the page lock would take
> care of that. Is that not true?
> 
> -Andi
> -- 
> ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/