linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] memory-failure: Introduce memory failure notifier

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: <20220530050929.GA1041165@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 05:09:30 +0000
From:   HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口　直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To:     zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>
CC:     "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] memory-failure: Introduce memory failure notifier

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 03:06:46PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> Introduce memory failure notifier, once hardware memory failure
> occurs, after the kernel handles the corrupted page successfully,
> someone who registered this chain gets noticed of the corrupted PFN.
> 
> Signed-off-by: zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>

...
> @@ -1136,6 +1165,10 @@ static void action_result(unsigned long pfn, enum mf_action_page_type type,
>  	num_poisoned_pages_inc();
>  	pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: recovery action for %s: %s\n",
>  		pfn, action_page_types[type], action_name[result]);
> +
> +	/* notify the chain if we handle successfully only */

This comment looks somewhat obvious from the code, maybe it's greater
to comment about "why" or the intention.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi

> +	if (result == MF_RECOVERED)
> +		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&mf_notifier_list, pfn, NULL);
>  }
>  
>  static int page_action(struct page_state *ps, struct page *p,
> -- 
> 2.20.1