linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload related to hugetlb and memory

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]

Message-ID: <6a5d31a3-c27f-f6d9-78bb-d6bf69547887@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 17:04:54 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] mm, hwpoison: improve handling workload
 related to hugetlb and memory_hotplug

On 2022/5/9 15:29, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:44:15AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> 2) It happens rarely (ever?), so do we even care?
>>>
>>> I'm not certain of the rarity.  Some cloud service providers who maintain
>>> lots of servers may care?
>>
>> About replacing broken DIMMs? I'm not so sure, especially because it
>> requires a special setup with ZONE_MOVABLE (i.e., movablecore) to be
>> somewhat reliable and individual DIMMs can usually not get replaced at all.
>>
>>>
>>>> 3) Once the memory is offline, we can re-online it and lost HWPoison.
>>>>    The memory can be happily used.
>>>>
>>>> 3) can happen easily if our DIMM consists of multiple memory blocks and
>>>> offlining of some memory block fails -> we'll re-online all already
>>>> offlined ones. We'll happily reuse previously HWPoisoned pages, which
>>>> feels more dangerous to me then just leaving the DIMM around (and
>>>> eventually hwpoisoning all pages on it such that it won't get used
>>>> anymore?).
>>>
>>> I see. This scenario can often happen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So maybe we should just fail offlining once we stumble over a hwpoisoned
>>>> page?
>>>
>>> That could be one choice.
>>>
>>> Maybe another is like this: offlining can succeed but HWPoison flags are
>>> kept over offline-reonline operations.  If the system noticed that the
>>> re-onlined blocks are backed by the original DIMMs or NUMA nodes, then the
>>> saved HWPoison flags are still effective, so keep using them.  If the
>>> re-onlined blocks are backed by replaced DIMMs/NUMA nodes, then we can clear
>>> all HWPoison flags associated with replaced physical address range.  This
>>> can be done automatically in re-onlining if there's a way for kernel to know
>>> whether DIMM/NUMA nodes are replaced with new ones.  But if there isn't,
>>> system applications have to check the HW and explicitly reset the HWPoison
>>> flags.
>>
>> Offline memory sections have a stale memmap, so there is no trusting on
>> that. And trying to work around that or adjusting memory onlining code
>> overcomplicates something we really don't care about supporting.
> 
> OK, so I'll go forward to reduce complexity in hwpoison specific code in
> memory offlining code.
> 
>>
>> So if we continue allowing offlining memory blocks with poisoned pages,
>> we could simply remember that that memory block had any posioned page
>> (either for the memory section or maybe better for the whole memory
>> block). We can then simply reject/fail memory onlining of these memory
>> blocks.
> 
> It seems to be helpful also for other conext (like hugetlb) to know whether
> there's any hwpoisoned page in a given range of physical address, so I'll
> think of this approach.
> 
>>
>> So that leaves us with either
>>
>> 1) Fail offlining -> no need to care about reonlining

Maybe fail offlining will be a better alternative as we can get rid of many races
between memory failure and memory offline? But no strong opinion. :)

Thanks!

>> 2) Succeed offlining but fail re-onlining
> 
> Rephrasing in case I misread, memory offlining code should never check
> hwpoisoned pages finally, and memory onlining code would do kind of range
> query to find hwpoisoned pages (without depending on PageHWPoison flag).
> 
> Thanks,
> Naoya Horiguchi
>