linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: fix hardware poison check in unpoison

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 07:30:23 -0700
From:   Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org,
        linmiaohe@...wei.com, naoya.horiguchi@....com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: fix hardware poison check in
 unpoison_memory()

On 7/17/23 5:39 PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 09:14:09AM +0900, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 11:18:12AM -0700, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:
>>> It was pointed out[1] that using folio_test_hwpoison() is wrong
>>> as we need to check the indiviual page that has poison.
>>> folio_test_hwpoison() only checks the head page so go back to using
>>> PageHWPoison().
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
>>> Fixes: a6fddef49eef ("mm/memory-failure: convert unpoison_memory() to folios")
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org #v6.4
>>> Signed-off-by: Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@...cle.com>
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZLIbZygG7LqSI9xe@casper.infradead.org/
>>> ---
>>>   mm/memory-failure.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> index 02b1d8f104d51..a114c8c3039cd 100644
>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>> @@ -2523,7 +2523,7 @@ int unpoison_memory(unsigned long pfn)
>>>   		goto unlock_mutex;
>>>   	}
>>>   
>>> -	if (!folio_test_hwpoison(folio)) {
>>> +	if (!PageHWPoison(p)) {
>>
>>
>> I don't think this works for hwpoisoned hugetlb pages that have PageHWPoison
>> set on the head page, rather than on the raw subpage. In the case of
>> hwpoisoned thps, PageHWPoison is set on the raw subpage, not on the head
>> pages.  (I believe this is not detected because no one considers the
>> scenario of unpoisoning hwpoisoned thps, which is a rare case).  Perhaps the
>> function is_page_hwpoison() would be useful for this purpose?
> 
> Sorry, I was wrong.  Checking PageHWPoison() is fine because the users of
> unpoison should know where the PageHWPoison is set via /proc/kpageflags.
> So this patch is OK to me after comments from other reviewers are resolved.
> 

Hi Naoya,

While taking a closer at the patch, later in unpoison_memory() there is 
also:

-               ret = TestClearPageHWPoison(page) ? 0 : -EBUSY;
+               ret = folio_test_clear_hwpoison(folio) ? 0 : -EBUSY;

I thought this folio conversion would be safe because page is the result 
of a compound_head() call but I'm wondering if the same issue exists 
here and we should be calling TestClearPageHWPoison() on the specific 
subpage by doing TestClearPageHWPoison(p).

Thanks,
Sidhartha Kumar

> Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Naoya Horiguchi
>