[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220405014544.GA2583652@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:45:45 +0000
From: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
<naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/hwpoison: fix race between hugetlb free/demotion
and memory_failure_hugetlb()
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 11:53:33AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:21:31 +0900 Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> > There is a race condition between memory_failure_hugetlb() and hugetlb
> > free/demotion, which causes setting PageHWPoison flag on the wrong page.
> > The one simple result is that wrong processes can be killed, but another
> > (more serious) one is that the actual error is left unhandled, so no one
> > prevents later access to it, and that might lead to more serious results
> > like consuming corrupted data.
>
> Should this fix be backported into stable kernels?
This is a bug fix, so eligible to send to stable. But I thought that this
patch is larger than 100 lines (and hard to separeter to finer patches),
which seems to violate the rule stated in
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
But actually this rule might not be strictly applied (some patches in
v5.16.y do have more than 100 lines diff...). So if we can ignore this rule
exceptionally, that's OK and I'll add CC to stable again.
The target commit of Fixed: tag is 761ad8d7c7b5 ("mm: hwpoison: introduce
memory_failure_hugetlb()") which was introduced in 4.13, so most of active
stable trees are affected.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists