On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:31:55 +0100
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
I am not sure whether this case will happen when !LMCE, when I realized this place may be an issue
I tried to reproduce it and my configuration is LMCE enabled.
> > 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.
Yes, I think after the recovery jod is finished, other processes still access the page
will meet a page fault and error will be returned;
> >
> > 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.
>
This set_mce_nospec() is not proper when the recovery job is on the fly. In my test
this function failed.
> 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.
>
What I care is the process B triggered the error again after process A,
I don't know how it return and proceed.
> So with your change, process B will be sent a SIGBUG, while process A is still
> handling the MCE, right?
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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > 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).
>
@David:
I checked the code again, and find a few places will care the exact return value, like:
1: drivers/base/memory.c:483: ret = memory_failure(pfn, 0);
This is for hard page offline, I see the code in mcelog:
static void offline_action(struct mempage *mp, u64 addr)
{
if (offline <= OFFLINE_ACCOUNT)
return;
Lprintf("Offlining page %llx\n", addr);
if (memory_offline(addr) < 0) {
Lprintf("Offlining page %llx failed: %s\n", addr, strerror(errno));
mp->offlined = PAGE_OFFLINE_FAILED;
} else
mp->offlined = PAGE_OFFLINE;
}
I think return an negative value will be more proper? As the related killing function may not be performed, and we can't say
it's a success operation?
2:mm/hwpoison-inject.c:51: return memory_failure(pfn, 0);
mm/madvise.c:910: ret = memory_failure(pfn, MF_COUNT_INCREASED);
These two cases are mainly for error injections, I checked the test codes, mostly it only care if the value is 0 or < 0;
I do the related test, normally it work well, but for stress test, sometimes in some case, I do meet some fail cases along with the -EBUSY return.
I will dig more.
Other place will only care if the return value is 0. or just ignore it.
Hi naoya, what's your opnion for this possible issue, I need your inputs!
Thanks
Aili Yao
