On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 08:44:53 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 31.03.21 06:32, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:43:36AM +0800, Aili Yao wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 01:52:59 +0000 HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:22:49PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>> On 26.03.21 15:09, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>>> On 22.03.21 12:33, Aili Yao wrote: > >>>>>> When we do coredump for user process signal, this may be one SIGBUS signal > >>>>>> with BUS_MCEERR_AR or BUS_MCEERR_AO code, which means this signal is > >>>>>> resulted from ECC memory fail like SRAR or SRAO, we expect the memory > >>>>>> recovery work is finished correctly, then the get_dump_page() will not > >>>>>> return the error page as its process pte is set invalid by > >>>>>> memory_failure(). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But memory_failure() may fail, and the process's related pte may not be > >>>>>> correctly set invalid, for current code, we will return the poison page, > >>>>>> get it dumped, and then lead to system panic as its in kernel code. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So check the hwpoison status in get_dump_page(), and if TRUE, return NULL. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There maybe other scenario that is also better to check hwposion status > >>>>>> and not to panic, so make a wrapper for this check, Thanks to David's > >>>>>> suggestion(<david@xxxxxxxxxx>). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210319104437.6f30e80d@alex-virtual-machine > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aili Yao <yaoaili@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: Aili Yao <yaoaili@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> mm/gup.c | 4 ++++ > >>>>>> mm/internal.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > >>>>>> index e4c224c..6f7e1aa 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/mm/gup.c > >>>>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c > >>>>>> @@ -1536,6 +1536,10 @@ struct page *get_dump_page(unsigned long addr) > >>>>>> FOLL_FORCE | FOLL_DUMP | FOLL_GET); > >>>>>> if (locked) > >>>>>> mmap_read_unlock(mm); > >>>>> > >>>>> Thinking again, wouldn't we get -EFAULT from __get_user_pages_locked() > >>>>> when stumbling over a hwpoisoned page? > >>>>> > >>>>> See __get_user_pages_locked()->__get_user_pages()->faultin_page(): > >>>>> > >>>>> handle_mm_fault()->vm_fault_to_errno(), which translates > >>>>> VM_FAULT_HWPOISON to -EFAULT, unless FOLL_HWPOISON is set (-> -EHWPOISON) > >>>>> > >>>>> ? > >>> > >>> We could get -EFAULT, but sometimes not (depends on how memory_failure() fails). > >>> > >>> If we failed to unmap, the page table is not converted to hwpoison entry, > >>> so __get_user_pages_locked() get the hwpoisoned page. > >>> > >>> If we successfully unmapped but failed in truncate_error_page() for example, > >>> the processes mapping the page would get -EFAULT as expected. But even in > >>> this case, other processes could reach the error page via page cache and > >>> __get_user_pages_locked() for them could return the hwpoisoned page. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Or doesn't that happen as you describe "But memory_failure() may fail, and > >>>> the process's related pte may not be correctly set invalid" -- but why does > >>>> that happen? > >>> > >>> Simply because memory_failure() doesn't handle some page types like ksm page > >>> and zero page. Or maybe shmem thp also belongs to this class. > > Thanks for that info! > > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On a similar thought, should get_user_pages() never return a page that has > >>>> HWPoison set? E.g., check also for existing PTEs if the page is hwpoisoned? > >>> > >>> Make sense to me. Maybe inserting hwpoison check into follow_page_pte() and > >>> follow_huge_pmd() would work well. > >> > >> I think we should take more care to broadcast the hwpoison check to other cases, > >> SIGBUS coredump is such a case that it is supposed to not touch the poison page, > >> and if we return NULL for this, the coredump process will get a successful finish. > >> > >> Other cases may also meet the requirements like coredump, but we need to identify it, > >> that's the poison check wrapper's purpose. If not, we may break the integrity of the > >> related action, which may be no better than panic. > > > > If you worry about regression and would like to make this new behavior conditional, > > we could use FOLL_HWPOISON to specify that the caller is hwpoison-aware so that > > any !FOLL_HWPOISON caller ignores the hwpoison check and works as it does now. > > This approach looks to me helpful because it would encourage developers touching > > gup code to pay attention to FOLL_HWPOISON code. > > FOLL_HWPOISON might be the right start, indeed. > Got this, Thanks! I will dig more! -- Thanks! Aili Yao
