linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, memory_failure: only send BUS_MCEERR

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 2020 02:22:41 +0000
From:   HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口　直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To:     Wetp Zhang <wetp.zy@...ux.alibaba.com>
CC:     "n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com" <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, memory_failure: only send BUS_MCEERR_AO to early-kill
 process

Hi Zhang,

Sorry for my late response.

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:06:41PM +0800, Wetp Zhang wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <wetpzy@...il.com>
>
> If a process don't need early-kill, it may not care the BUS_MCEERR_AO.
> Let the process to be killed when it really access the corrupted memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <wetpzy@...il.com>

Thank you for pointing this. This looks to me a bug (per-process flag
is ignored when system-wide flag is set).

> ---
>  mm/memory-failure.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index a96364be8ab4..2db13d48865c 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static int kill_proc(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>  {
>  	struct task_struct *t = tk->tsk;
>  	short addr_lsb = tk->size_shift;
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret = 0;
>
>  	pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to hardware memory corruption\n",
>  		pfn, t->comm, t->pid);
> @@ -225,8 +225,9 @@ static int kill_proc(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>  		 * This could cause a loop when the user sets SIGBUS
>  		 * to SIG_IGN, but hopefully no one will do that?
>  		 */
> -		ret = send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AO, (void __user *)tk->addr,
> -				      addr_lsb, t);  /* synchronous? */
> +		if ((t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS) && (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY))
> +			ret = send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AO,
> +				(void __user *)tk->addr, addr_lsb, t);

kill_proc() could be called only for processes that are selected by
collect_procs() with task_early_kill().  So I think that we should fix
task_early_kill(), maybe by reordering sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill
check and find_early_kill_thread() check.

    static struct task_struct *task_early_kill(struct task_struct *tsk,
                                               int force_early)
    {
            struct task_struct *t;
            if (!tsk->mm)
                    return NULL;
            if (force_early)
                    return tsk;
            t = find_early_kill_thread(tsk);
            if (t)
                    return t;
            if (sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill)
                    return tsk;
            return NULL;
    }

One subtleness is to make sure that find_early_kill_thread() should distinguish
default value and explicitly set value, so we might need some modification
on find_early_kill_thread().

Can you try that?

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi