linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/huge_memory: don't unpoison huge_zero

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: Thu, 16 May 2024 10:26:51 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	shy828301@...il.com, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
	xuyu@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/huge_memory: don't unpoison huge_zero_folio

On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 05:55:39PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > +	if (is_huge_zero_folio(folio)) {
> > +		unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: huge zero page is not supported %#lx\n",
> > +				 pfn, &unpoison_rs);
> > +		goto unlock_mutex;
> > +	}
> > +

Sorry for spamming your reply David, but for some unknown reason I am not able
to find the original patch in my mailbox, in none of the two accountes I am
subscribed, so I guess I will have to reply here.

Just two things

1) We do not care if someone grabs a refcount for huge_zero_folio,
   because since it is not supported anyway the outcome will not change.
   Also, AFAIK, there is no chance we can unpoison that folio.
   Therefore, I would just lift the check two blocks and place it right after
   the hw_memory_failure check.

2) The whole thing is unsupported, but you will return -EBUSY while you
   should be returning -EOPNOTSUPP AFAICS.

with that you can add:

Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs