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, 25 Feb 2021 19:26:47 -0800
From:   Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To:     HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
Cc:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Aili Yao <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "inux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <inux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "yangfeng1@...gsoft.com" <yangfeng1@...gsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:23 PM HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 10:15:42AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:

> > CPU3 reads the poison and starts along same path that CPU2
> > did.
>
> I think that the MCE loop happening on CPU2 and CPU3 is unexpected
> and these threads should immediately kill the current process on
> each CPU.  force_sig_mceerr() in kill_me_maybe() is supposed to do it,
> so Aili's patch would fix this issue too?

It would stop the looping. But for the case where the error came from
user code we don't have
the virtual address that was accessed at this point (normally this
address is found during the
reverse lokup from the physical address inside memory_failure()).

So we can send a generic SIGBUS, but not one with the usual extra
information about the
location of the error.

-Tony

Powered by blists - more mailing lists