linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memory-failure: send SIGBUS in the event of thp split fail

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: Wed, 8 May 2024 10:45:15 -0700
From: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
To: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/memory-failure: send SIGBUS in the event of thp
 split fail

On 5/8/2024 1:08 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:

> On 2024/5/7 4:26, Jane Chu wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 12:00 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024/5/2 7:24, Jane Chu wrote:
>>>> When handle hwpoison in a GUP longterm pin'ed thp page,
>>>> try_to_split_thp_page() will fail. And at this point, there is little else
>>>> the kernel could do except sending a SIGBUS to the user process, thus
>>>> give it a chance to recover.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
>>> Thanks for your patch. Some comments below.
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    mm/memory-failure.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>> index 7fcf182abb96..67f4d24a98e7 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
>>>> @@ -2168,6 +2168,37 @@ static int memory_failure_dev_pagemap(unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>>>        return rc;
>>>>    }
>>>>    +/*
>>>> + * The calling condition is as such: thp split failed, page might have
>>>> + * been GUP longterm pinned, not much can be done for recovery.
>>>> + * But a SIGBUS should be delivered with vaddr provided so that the user
>>>> + * application has a chance to recover. Also, application processes'
>>>> + * election for MCE early killed will be honored.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int kill_procs_now(struct page *p, unsigned long pfn, int flags,
>>>> +            struct page *hpage)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct folio *folio = page_folio(hpage);
>>>> +    LIST_HEAD(tokill);
>>>> +    int res = -EHWPOISON;
>>>> +
>>>> +    /* deal with user pages only */
>>>> +    if (PageReserved(p) || PageSlab(p) || PageTable(p) || PageOffline(p))
>>>> +        res = -EBUSY;
>>>> +    if (!(PageLRU(hpage) || PageHuge(p)))
>>>> +        res = -EBUSY;
>>> Above checks seems unneeded. We already know it's thp?
>> Agreed.
>>
>> I  lifted these checks from hwpoison_user_mapping() with a hope to make kill_procs_now() more generic,
>>
>> such as, potentially replacing kill_accessing_processes() for re-accessing hwpoisoned page.
>>
>> But I backed out at last, due to concerns that my tests might not have covered sufficient number of scenarios.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (res == -EHWPOISON) {
>>>> +        collect_procs(folio, p, &tokill, flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED);
>>>> +        kill_procs(&tokill, true, pfn, flags);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (flags & MF_COUNT_INCREASED)
>>>> +        put_page(p);
>>> This if block is broken. put_page() has been done when try_to_split_thp_page() fails?
>> put_page() has not been done if try_to_split_thp_page() fails, and I think it should.
> In try_to_split_thp_page(), if split_huge_page fails, i.e. ret != 0, put_page() is called. See below:
>
> static int try_to_split_thp_page(struct page *page)
> {
> 	int ret;
>
> 	lock_page(page);
> 	ret = split_huge_page(page);
> 	unlock_page(page);
>
> 	if (unlikely(ret))
> 		put_page(page);
> 	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	return ret;
> }
>
> Or am I miss something?

I think you caught a bug in my code, thanks!

How about moving put_page() outside try_to_split_thp_page() ?

>
>> I will revise the code so that put_page() is called regardless MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set or not.
>>
>>>> +
>>> action_result is missing?
>> Indeed,  action_result() isn't always called, referring to the re-accessing hwpoison scenarios.
>>
>> In this case, I think the reason  is that, we just killed the process and there is nothing
>>
>> else to do or to report.
>>
>>>> +    return res;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    /**
>>>>     * memory_failure - Handle memory failure of a page.
>>>>     * @pfn: Page Number of the corrupted page
>>>> @@ -2297,6 +2328,11 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
>>>>             */
>>>>            SetPageHasHWPoisoned(hpage);
>>>>            if (try_to_split_thp_page(p) < 0) {
>>> Should hwpoison_filter() be called in this case?
>> Yes, it should. I will add the hwpoison_filter check.
>>>> +            if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) {
> Only in MF_ACTION_REQUIRED case, SIGBUS is sent to processes when thp split failed. Any reson under it?

I took a clue from kill_accessing_process() which is invoked only if 
MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set.

The usual code path for delivery signal is

if page-is-dirty or MF_MUST_KILL-is-set or umap-failed, then

- send SIGKILL if vaddr is -EFAULT

- send SIGBUS with BUS_MCEERR_AR if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is set

- send SIGBUS with BUS_MCEERR_AO if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED is not set and 
process elected for MCE-early-kill

So, if kill_procs_now() is invoked only if MF_ACTION_REQUIRED (as it is 
in the patch), one can argue that

the MCE-early-kill request is not honored which deviates from the 
existing behavior.

Perhaps I should remove the

+ if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) {

check.

thanks!

-jane



>
> Thanks.
> .