[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bdb1c6-5803-d9c0-9208-432027ae1d8b@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 11:36:41 +0800
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 3/7] arm64: add support for machine check error
safe
在 2022/5/25 16:30, Mark Rutland 写道:
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 02:29:54PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在 2022/5/13 23:26, Mark Rutland 写道:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:04:14AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>>> During the processing of arm64 kernel hardware memory errors(do_sea()), if
>>>> the errors is consumed in the kernel, the current processing is panic.
>>>> However, it is not optimal.
>>>>
>>>> Take uaccess for example, if the uaccess operation fails due to memory
>>>> error, only the user process will be affected, kill the user process
>>>> and isolate the user page with hardware memory errors is a better choice.
>>>
>>> Conceptually, I'm fine with the idea of constraining what we do for a
>>> true uaccess, but I don't like the implementation of this at all, and I
>>> think we first need to clean up the arm64 extable usage to clearly
>>> distinguish a uaccess from another access.
>>
>> OK,using EX_TYPE_UACCESS and this extable type could be recover, this is
>> more reasonable.
>
> Great.
>
>> For EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO, today we use it for kernel accesses in a
>> couple of cases, such as
>> get_user/futex/__user_cache_maint()/__user_swpX_asm(),
>
> Those are all user accesses.
>
> However, __get_kernel_nofault() and __put_kernel_nofault() use
> EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO by way of __{get,put}_mem_asm(), so we'd need to
> refactor that code to split the user/kernel cases higher up the callchain.
>
>> your suggestion is:
>> get_user continues to use EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO and the other cases use
>> new type EX_TYPE_FIXUP_ERR_ZERO?
>
> Yes, that's the rough shape. We could make the latter EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO
> to be clearly analogous to EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO, and with that I susepct we
> could remove EX_TYPE_FIXUP.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
According to your suggestion, i think the definition is like this:
#define EX_TYPE_NONE 0
#define EX_TYPE_FIXUP 1 --> delete
#define EX_TYPE_BPF 2
#define EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO 3
#define EX_TYPE_LOAD_UNALIGNED_ZEROPAD 4
#define EX_TYPE_UACCESS xx --> add
#define EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO xx --> add
[The value defined by the macro here is temporary]
There are two points to modify:
1、_get_kernel_nofault() and __put_kernel_nofault() using
EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO, Other positions using
EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO keep unchanged.
2、delete EX_TYPE_FIXUP.
There is no doubt about others. As for EX_TYPE_FIXUP, I think it needs
to be retained, _cond_extable(EX_TYPE_FIXUP) is still in use in assembler.h.
Thanks,
Tong.
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists