linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/hwpoison: introduce per-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: <20221007004700.GB3227576@hori.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 00:47:00 +0000
From:   HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口　直也) 
        <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
To:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
CC:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/hwpoison: introduce per-memory_block hwpoison
 counter counter

On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 08:27:35PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
> On 2022/9/23 22:12, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > There seems another build error in aarch64 with MEMORY_HOTPLUG disabled.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220923110144.GA1413812@ik1-406-35019.vs.sakura.ne.jp/
> > , so let me revise this patch again to handle it.
> > 
> > - Naoya Horiguchi
> > 
> > ---
> > From: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 22:51:20 +0900
> > Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] mm/hwpoison: introduce per-memory_block hwpoison counter
> > 
> > Currently PageHWPoison flag does not behave well when experiencing memory
> > hotremove/hotplug.  Any data field in struct page is unreliable when the
> > associated memory is offlined, and the current mechanism can't tell whether
> > a memory section is onlined because a new memory devices is installed or
> > because previous failed offline operations are undone.  Especially if
> > there's a hwpoisoned memory, it's unclear what the best option is.
> > 
> > So introduce a new mechanism to make struct memory_block remember that
> > a memory block has hwpoisoned memory inside it. And make any online event
> > fail if the onlined memory block contains hwpoison.  struct memory_block
> > is freed and reallocated over ACPI-based hotremove/hotplug, but not over
> > sysfs-based hotremove/hotplug.  So it's desirable to implement hwpoison
> > counter on this struct.
> > 
> > Note that clear_hwpoisoned_pages() is relocated to be called earlier than
> > now, just before unregistering struct memory_block.  Otherwise, the
> > per-memory_block hwpoison counter is freed and we fail to adjust global
> > hwpoison counter properly.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> 
> LGTM with some nits below. Thanks.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>

Thank you.

> 
> > ---
> > ChangeLog v4 -> v5:
> > - add Reported-by of lkp bot,
> > - check both CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE and CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG in introduced #ifdefs,
> >   intending to fix "undefined reference" errors in aarch64.
> > 
> > ChangeLog v3 -> v4:
> > - fix build error (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202209231134.tnhKHRfg-lkp@intel.com/)
> >   by using memblk_nr_poison() to access to the member ->nr_hwpoison
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/memory.c  | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/memory.h |  3 +++
> >  include/linux/mm.h     | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  mm/internal.h          |  8 --------
> >  mm/memory-failure.c    | 31 ++++++++++---------------------
> >  mm/sparse.c            |  2 --
> >  6 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > index 9aa0da991cfb..99e0e789616c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > @@ -183,6 +183,9 @@ static int memory_block_online(struct memory_block *mem)
> >  	struct zone *zone;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > +	if (memblk_nr_poison(start_pfn))
> > +		return -EHWPOISON;
> > +
> >  	zone = zone_for_pfn_range(mem->online_type, mem->nid, mem->group,
> >  				  start_pfn, nr_pages);
> >  
> > @@ -864,6 +867,7 @@ void remove_memory_block_devices(unsigned long start, unsigned long size)
> >  		mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id);
> >  		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!mem))
> >  			continue;
> > +		clear_hwpoisoned_pages(memblk_nr_poison(start));
> 
> clear_hwpoisoned_pages seems not a proper name now? PageHWPoison info is kept now. But this should be trivial.
> 

Right, I think that the name num_poisoned_pages_sub() is clear enough, so
I'll open this function.

> >  		unregister_memory_block_under_nodes(mem);
> >  		remove_memory_block(mem);
> >  	}
> > @@ -1164,3 +1168,33 @@ int walk_dynamic_memory_groups(int nid, walk_memory_groups_func_t func,
> >  	}
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> > +
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_FAILURE) && defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)
> > +void memblk_nr_poison_inc(unsigned long pfn)
> > +{
> > +	const unsigned long block_id = pfn_to_block_id(pfn);
> > +	struct memory_block *mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id);
> > +
> > +	if (mem)
> > +		atomic_long_inc(&mem->nr_hwpoison);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void memblk_nr_poison_sub(unsigned long pfn, long i)
> > +{
> > +	const unsigned long block_id = pfn_to_block_id(pfn);
> > +	struct memory_block *mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id);
> > +
> > +	if (mem)
> > +		atomic_long_sub(i, &mem->nr_hwpoison);
> > +}
> > +
> > +unsigned long memblk_nr_poison(unsigned long pfn)
> 
> memblk_nr_poison() is only used inside this file. Make it static?

Thanks, I'll add it.

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi