On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:00:21PM +0800, Aili Yao wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2021 07:21:28 +0000 > HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 05:38:52PM +0800, Aili Yao wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:29:53 +0900 ... > > > And I think the virtual address along SIGBUS is not mean to backtrace the code, it just want to tell where the error memory is, for multi pte > > > entry, one virtual address for the same physical page is not enough? > > > > > > Compare this patch with my RFC patch, difference: > > > 1.This patch will just fix the race issue's invalid virtual address. while my RFC patch will cover all the error case for recovery; > > > 2.For multi entry, this patch will do one force_sig with no other infomation, But the RFC patch will take one possible right address, I don't know which one is better. > > > > > > And if this multi pte entry is one real issue, it seems the normal recovey work will aslo trigger this, would it be better to fix that first? > > > > Assuming that your RFC is https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210317162304.58ff188c@alex-virtual-machine/, > > it simply uses the first-found virtual address. I start thinking that this > > approach could be fine. And it's easy to change the patch with this approach. > > I have no preference, so if you like, I switch to the "first-found" approach. > > Hi Naoya: > Thanks for your reply! > Yes, you can change to that RFC approach, but there may be some un-indentified issuees, and need more considerations though. > And there may be other method to address this, you can also dig into that, get it realized and posted. > I am OK with any option. > But for here, From the beginning, I thinks the invalid address issue and race issue are two different issues, may have some > relationship but still two issues in my mind. > whould you please seperate this series patches into three again? OK, I'll do it. Maybe that's helpful if we consider to send some part of the series to stable. - Naoya
