[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210309101452.281af49d@alex-virtual-machine>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:14:52 +0800
From: Aili Yao <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"yangfeng1@...gsoft.com" <yangfeng1@...gsoft.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yaoaili@...gsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/fault: Send a SIGBUS to user process always for
hwpoison page access.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:31:07 +0000
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> > Can you point me at that SIGBUS code in a current kernel?
>
> It is in kill_me_maybe(). mce_vaddr is setup when we disassemble whatever get_user()
> or copy from user variant was in use in the kernel when the poison memory was consumed.
>
> if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
> force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr, PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> Would it be any better if we used the BUS_MCEERR_AO code that goes into siginfo?
>
> That would make it match up better with what happens when poison is found
> asynchronously by the patrol scrubber. I.e. the semantics are:
>
> AR: You just touched poison at this address and need to do something about that.
> AO: Just letting you know that you have some poison at the address in siginfo.
>
> -Tony
Is the kill action for this scenario in memory_failure()?
--
Thanks!
Aili Yao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists