[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220615081521.GB1663556@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 08:15:22 +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>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"linmiaohe@...wei.com" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm/memory-failure: disable unpoison once hw error
happens
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 10:00:05AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> Currently unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn) is designed for soft
> poison(hwpoison-inject) only. Since 17fae1294ad9d, the KPTE gets
> cleared on a x86 platform once hardware memory corrupts.
>
> Unpoisoning a hardware corrupted page puts page back buddy only,
> the kernel has a chance to access the page with *NOT PRESENT* KPTE.
> This leads BUG during accessing on the corrupted KPTE.
>
> Suggested by David&Naoya, disable unpoison mechanism when a real HW error
> happens to avoid BUG like this:
...
>
> Fixes: 847ce401df392 ("HWPOISON: Add unpoisoning support")
> Fixes: 17fae1294ad9d ("x86/{mce,mm}: Unmap the entire page if the whole page is affected and poisoned")
> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>
Cc to stable?
I think that the current approach seems predictable to me than earlier versions,
so I can agree with sending this to stable a little more confidently.
> ---
> Documentation/vm/hwpoison.rst | 3 ++-
> drivers/base/memory.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/mm.h | 1 +
> mm/hwpoison-inject.c | 2 +-
> mm/madvise.c | 2 +-
> mm/memory-failure.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
...
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index b85661cbdc4a..385b5e99bfc1 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ int sysctl_memory_failure_recovery __read_mostly = 1;
>
> atomic_long_t num_poisoned_pages __read_mostly = ATOMIC_LONG_INIT(0);
>
> +static bool hw_memory_failure;
Could you set the initial value explicitly? Using a default value is good,
but doing as the surrounding code do is better for consistency. And this
variable can be updated only once, so adding __read_mostly macro is also fine.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists