From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To: Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
Cc: naoya.horiguchi@nec.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
tony.luck@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
inux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, yangfeng1@kingsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:31:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210224103105.GA16368@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210224151619.67c29731@alex-virtual-machine>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 03:16:19PM +0800, Aili Yao wrote:
> When the page is already poisoned, another memory_failure() call in the
> same page now return 0, meaning OK. For nested memory mce handling, this
> behavior may lead real serious problem, Example:
I have some questions:
> 1.When LCME is enabled, and there are two processes A && B running on
> different core X && Y separately, which will access one same page, then
> the page corrupted when process A access it, a MCE will be rasied to
> core X and the error process is just underway.
When !LMCE, that is not a problem because new MCE needs to wait for the ongoing MCE?
> 2.Then B access the page and trigger another MCE to core Y, it will also
> do error process, it will see TestSetPageHWPoison be true, and 0 is
> returned.
For non-nested calls, that is no problem because the page will be taken out
of business(unmapped from the processes), right? So no more MCE are possible.
>
> 3.The kill_me_maybe will check the return:
>
> 1244 static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
> 1245 {
>
> 1254 if (!memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags) &&
> 1255 !(p->mce_kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)) {
> 1256 set_mce_nospec(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT,
So, IIUC, in case of a LMCE nested call, the second MCE will reach here.
set_mce_nospec() will either mark the underlying page as not mapped/cached.
Should not have memory_failure()->hwpoison_user_mappings() unmapped the page
from both process A and B? Or this is in case the ongoing MCE(process A) has
not still unmapped anything, so process B can still access this page.
So with your change, process B will be sent a SIGBUG, while process A is still
handling the MCE, right?
> p->mce_whole_page);
> 1257 sync_core();
> 1258 return;
> 1259 }
>
> 1267 }
>
> 4. The error process for B will end, and may nothing happened if
> kill-early is not set, We may let the wrong data go into effect.
>
> For other cases which care the return value of memory_failure() should
> check why they want to process a memory error which have already been
> processed. This behavior seems reasonable.
>
> In kill_me_maybe, log the fact about the memory may not recovered, and
> we will kill the related process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 2 ++
> mm/memory-failure.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index e133ce1e562b..db4afc5bf15a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -1259,6 +1259,8 @@ static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
> }
>
> if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
> + pr_err("Memory error may not recovered: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to hardware memory corruption\n",
> + p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, p->comm, p->pid);
> force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr, PAGE_SHIFT);
> } else {
> pr_err("Memory error not recovered");
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index e9481632fcd1..06f006174b8c 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1224,7 +1224,7 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) {
> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n",
> pfn);
> - return 0;
> + return -EBUSY;
As David said, madvise_inject_error() will start returning -EBUSY now in case
we madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on an already hwpoisoned page.
AFAICS, memory_failure() can return 0, -Eerrors, and MF_XXX.
Would it make sense to unify that? That way we could declare error codes that
make somse sense (like MF_ALREADY_HWPOISONED).
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-24 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-24 7:16 [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned Aili Yao
2021-02-24 10:10 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-02-24 10:31 ` Oscar Salvador [this message]
2021-02-25 3:43 ` Aili Yao
2021-02-25 11:28 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-02-25 11:39 ` Oscar Salvador
2021-02-25 12:38 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-02-25 18:15 ` Luck, Tony
2021-02-26 2:19 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-02-26 2:59 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-03 3:39 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-03 3:57 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-03 8:39 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-03 15:41 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-04 2:16 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-04 4:19 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-04 6:45 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-04 23:57 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-05 1:30 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-05 1:36 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-05 22:11 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-08 6:45 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-08 18:54 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-08 22:38 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-08 22:55 ` [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: Use a mutex to avoid memory_failure() races Luck, Tony
2021-03-08 23:42 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-09 2:04 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-09 6:04 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-09 6:35 ` [PATCH v2] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned Aili Yao
2021-03-09 8:28 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-09 20:01 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-10 8:05 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-13 1:55 ` Jue Wang
2021-03-10 8:01 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-31 11:25 ` [PATCH v3] mm,hwpoison: return -EHWPOISON " Aili Yao
2021-04-01 15:33 ` Luck, Tony
2021-04-02 1:18 ` Aili Yao
2021-04-02 15:11 ` Luck, Tony
2021-04-05 13:50 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-04-06 1:04 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-09 6:38 ` [PATCH] mm/memory-failure: Use a mutex to avoid memory_failure() races Aili Yao
2021-03-05 15:55 ` [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned Luck, Tony
2021-03-10 6:10 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-11 8:55 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-11 11:23 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-11 17:05 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-12 5:55 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-12 16:29 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-12 23:48 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-16 6:42 ` HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
2021-03-16 7:54 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-17 0:29 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-17 9:07 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-17 7:48 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-17 8:23 ` Aili Yao
2021-02-26 3:26 ` Tony Luck
2021-02-26 2:52 ` Aili Yao
2021-02-26 17:58 ` Luck, Tony
2021-03-02 4:32 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-31 10:56 ` Aili Yao
2021-03-31 10:58 ` David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210224103105.GA16368@linux \
--to=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=inux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=naoya.horiguchi@nec.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yangfeng1@kingsoft.com \
--cc=yaoaili@kingsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).