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: <465902dc-d3bf-7a93-da04-839faddcd699@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 18:53:29 +0800
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
CC:     HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        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 17:58, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 05:04:54PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> 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. :)
> 
> If taking care of those races is not an herculean effort, I'd go with
> allowing offlining + disallow re-onlining.
> Mainly because memory RAS stuff.

This dose make sense to me. Thanks. We can try to solve those races if
offlining + disallow re-onlining is applied. :)

> 
> Now, to the re-onlining thing, we'll have to come up with a way to check
> whether a section contains hwpoisoned pages, so we do not have to go
> and check every single page, as that will be really suboptimal.

Yes, we need a stable and cheap way to do that.

Thanks!

> 
>