linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/mm: support memory-failure on 32-bits with SPARSEMEM

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]

Message-ID: <20251104133254.145660-1-xieyuanbin1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 21:32:54 +0800
From: Xie Yuanbin <xieyuanbin1@...wei.com>
To: <david@...hat.com>, <dave.hansen@...el.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<hpa@...or.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
	<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <rppt@...nel.org>,
	<surenb@...gle.com>, <mhocko@...e.com>, <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
	<nao.horiguchi@...il.com>, <luto@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, <will@...nel.org>, <liaohua4@...wei.com>,
	<lilinjie8@...wei.com>, Xie Yuanbin <xieyuanbin1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/mm: support memory-failure on 32-bits with SPARSEMEM

The previous email was corrupted; please ignore it.
I'm very sorry about this.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:33:39 +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> This is a pretty generic description of MCEs.
>
> I think what we are missing is: who runs 32bit OSes on MCE-capable 
> hardware (or VMs?) and needs this to work.
>
> What's the use case?

I did indeed miss this part in my description, and I apologize for that.
Since the memory-failure feature was introduced, from
commit 6a46079cf57a7f7758e8 ("HWPOISON: The high level memory error
handler in the VM v7"), it can be enabled on x86_32, submitting these
patches only because MEMORY_FAILURE cannot be enabled together with
SPARSEMEM on x86_32. The memory-failure was introduced in 2009, when
64-bit hardware was not even very popular yet, and the first caller of
`memory_failure()` is from x86's MCE.
Even in latest version, with default i386_defconfig, MEMORY_FAILURE can be
enabled directly on x86_32, because i386_defconfig does not enable
SPARSEMEM by default.
Therefore, I did not consider the need to explain why MEMORY_FAILURE needs
to be enabled on the x86_32.

Now, let me try to explain it. From what I understand, it mainly comes
from two aspects:
1. Although almost all new CPUs are 64-bit, there are still many existing
32-bit x86 devices in uses.
2. On some embedded devices, in order to save memory overhead, even with
64-bit CPU hardware, a 32-bit kernel may still be used. You might wonder
why embedded devices need SPARSEMEM. This is because the MEMORY_HOTPLUG
feature depends on SPARSEMEM, not necessarily SPARSEMEM itself.

All of the above devices, the memory-failure feature may be used to
provide reliable memory errors handling, and to minimize service
interruptions as much as possible.

> Cheers
>
> David

Thanks!

Xie Yuanbin