linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2] ACPI: APEI: do not add task_work to kernel thread to avoid memory leak

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: <SJ1PR11MB60837ABF899B5CF1F01D68D1FC579@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 20:52:02 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC:     Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        "linmiaohe@...wei.com" <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "cuibixuan@...ux.alibaba.com" <cuibixuan@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com" <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        "zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com" <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ACPI: APEI: do not add task_work to kernel thread to
 avoid memory leak

Thanks for your patient explanations.

> STEP2: In IRQ context, ghes_proc_in_irq() queues memory failure work on current CPU
> in workqueue and add task work to sync with the workqueue.

Why is there a difference if the interrupted task was a user task vs. a kernel thread?

It seems arbitrary. If the error can be handled in the kernel thread case without
a task_work_add() to the current process, can't all errors be handled this way?

The current thread likely has nothing to do with the error. Just a matter of chance
on what is running when the NMI is delivered, right?

-Tony