linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm/memory-failure: improve memory failure action

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, 22 May 2024 22:37:53 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
Cc: linmiaohe@...wei.com, nao.horiguchi@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm/memory-failure: improve memory failure
 action_result messages

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 05:54:27PM -0600, Jane Chu wrote:
> Added two explicit MF_MSG messages describing failure in get_hwpoison_page.
> Attemped to document the definition of various action names, and made a few
> adjustment to the action_result() calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>

This looks much better, thanks:

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

By the way, I was checking the block in memory_failure() that handles
refcount=0 pages, concretely the piece of code that handles buddy pages.

In there, if we fail to take the page off the buddy lists, we return
MF_FAILED, but I really think we should be returning MF_IGNORED.

Thoughts?

-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs