linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: teach kill_accessing

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: <456efb44-6dbb-4436-8273-9cd532d468d1@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 12:32:29 -0800
From: jane.chu@...cle.com
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: muchun.song@...ux.dev, osalvador@...e.de, david@...nel.org,
        linmiaohe@...wei.com, jiaqiyan@...gle.com, william.roche@...cle.com,
        rientjes@...gle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
        Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com,
        mhocko@...e.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: teach kill_accessing_process to accept
 hugetlb tail page pfn



On 12/20/2025 3:13 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 23:28:19 -0700 Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
>> When a hugetlb folio is being poisoned again, try_memory_failure_hugetlb()
>> passed head pfn to kill_accessing_process(), that is not right.
>> The precise pfn of the poisoned page should be used in order to
>> determine the precise vaddr as the SIGBUS payload.
>>
>> This issue has already been taken care of in the normal path, that is,
>> hwpoison_user_mappings(), see [1][2].  Further more, for [3] to work
>> correctly in the hugetlb repoisoning case, it's essential to inform
>> VM the precise poisoned page, not the head page.
> 
> This conflicts with your "mm/memory-failure: fix missing ->mf_stats
> count in hugetlb poison".
> 
> Also conflicts a bit with "mm: fixup pfnmap memory failure handling to
> use pgoff" but that one isn't cc:stable, so this patch (which *is*
> cc:stable) takes priority.
> 
> Help?
> 

Sorry Andrew.  Let me try rebase v3 on top of my other patch.  Will also 
take a look at this other conflict.

thanks,
-jane