| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <421a271d-ef7b-7c00-830c-85f18a6a7afa@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:34:09 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: <ankita@...dia.com>, <aniketa@...dia.com>
CC: <cjia@...dia.com>, <kwankhede@...dia.com>, <targupta@...dia.com>,
<zhiw@...dia.com>, <dnigam@...dia.com>, <kjaju@...dia.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>,
<u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <vsethi@...dia.com>,
<jgg@...dia.com>, <mochs@...dia.com>, <skolothumtho@...dia.com>,
<nao.horiguchi@...il.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <david@...hat.com>,
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
<rppt@...nel.org>, <surenb@...gle.com>, <mhocko@...e.com>,
<tony.luck@...el.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<guohanjun@...wei.com>, <mchehab@...nel.org>, <lenb@...nel.org>,
<kevin.tian@...el.com>, <alex@...zbot.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] mm: handle poisoning of pfn without struct pages
On 2025/10/21 18:23, ankita@...dia.com wrote:
> From: Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>
>
> The kernel MM currently does not handle ECC errors / poison on a memory
> region that is not backed by struct pages. If a memory region mapped
> using remap_pfn_range() for example, but not added to the kernel, MM
> will not have associated struct pages. Add a new mechanism to handle
> memory failure on such memory.
>
> Make kernel MM expose a function to allow modules managing the device
> memory to register the device memory SPA and the address space associated
> it. MM maintains this information as an interval tree. On poison, MM can
> search for the range that the poisoned PFN belong and use the address_space
> to determine the mapping VMA.
>
> In this implementation, kernel MM follows the following sequence that is
> largely similar to the memory_failure() handler for struct page backed
> memory:
> 1. memory_failure() is triggered on reception of a poison error. An
> absence of struct page is detected and consequently memory_failure_pfn()
> is executed.
> 2. memory_failure_pfn() collects the processes mapped to the PFN.
> 3. memory_failure_pfn() sends SIGBUS to all the processes mapping the
> poisoned PFN using kill_procs().
>
> Note that there is one primary difference versus the handling of the
> poison on struct pages, which is to skip unmapping to the faulty PFN.
> This is done to handle the huge PFNMAP support added recently [1] that
> enables VM_PFNMAP vmas to map in either PMD level. Otherwise, a poison
> to a PFN would need breaking the PMD mapping into PTEs to unmap only
> the poisoned PFN. This will have a major performance impact.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240826204353.2228736-1-peterx@redhat.com/ [1]
>
> Signed-off-by: Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>
Thanks for your patch. Some comments below.
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> include/linux/memory-failure.h | 17 +++++
> include/linux/mm.h | 1 +
> include/ras/ras_event.h | 1 +
> mm/Kconfig | 1 +
> mm/memory-failure.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 6 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-failure.h
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 520fb4e379a3..463d062d0386 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -11359,6 +11359,7 @@ M: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
> R: Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
> L: linux-mm@...ck.org
> S: Maintained
> +F: include/linux/memory-failure.h
> F: mm/hwpoison-inject.c
> F: mm/memory-failure.c
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memory-failure.h b/include/linux/memory-failure.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..bc326503d2d2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/memory-failure.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_FAILURE_H
> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_FAILURE_H
> +
> +#include <linux/interval_tree.h>
> +
> +struct pfn_address_space;
Do we need this declaration?
> +
> +struct pfn_address_space {
> + struct interval_tree_node node;
> + struct address_space *mapping;
> +};
> +
<snip>
> +static int memory_failure_pfn(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> +{
> + struct interval_tree_node *node;
> + LIST_HEAD(tokill);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&pfn_space_lock);
> + /*
> + * Modules registers with MM the address space mapping to the device memory they
> + * manage. Iterate to identify exactly which address space has mapped to this
> + * failing PFN.
> + */
> + for (node = interval_tree_iter_first(&pfn_space_itree, pfn, pfn); node;
> + node = interval_tree_iter_next(node, pfn, pfn)) {
> + struct pfn_address_space *pfn_space =
> + container_of(node, struct pfn_address_space, node);
> +
> + collect_procs_pfn(pfn_space->mapping, pfn, &tokill);
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&pfn_space_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Unlike System-RAM there is no possibility to swap in a different
> + * physical page at a given virtual address, so all userspace
> + * consumption of direct PFN memory necessitates SIGBUS (i.e.
> + * MF_MUST_KILL)
> + */
> + flags |= MF_ACTION_REQUIRED | MF_MUST_KILL;
> +
> + kill_procs(&tokill, true, pfn, flags);
> +
If pfn doesn't belong to any address space mapping, it's still counted as MF_RECOVERED?
> + return action_result(pfn, MF_MSG_PFN_MAP, MF_RECOVERED);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * memory_failure - Handle memory failure of a page.
> * @pfn: Page Number of the corrupted page
> @@ -2259,6 +2380,11 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> if (!(flags & MF_SW_SIMULATED))
> hw_memory_failure = true;
>
> + if (!pfn_valid(pfn) && !arch_is_platform_page(PFN_PHYS(pfn))) {
It's better to have some comments for this case.
> + res = memory_failure_pfn(pfn, flags);
> + goto unlock_mutex;
> + }
> +
> p = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
> if (!p) {
> res = arch_memory_failure(pfn, flags);
Can we move above memory_failure_pfn block here? I'm worried that too many scenario branches might
lead to confusion.
Thanks.
.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists