Re: [PATCH v2] mm: clean up hwpoison page cache page in fault path

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:37:26PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: clean up hwpoison page cache page in fault
> > > path
> > 
> > At first scan I thought this was a code cleanup.
> > 
> > I think I'll do s/clean up/invalidate/.
> > 
> OK, that sounds good.
> 
> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 21:37:40 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Sometimes the page offlining code can leave behind a hwpoisoned
> > > clean
> > > page cache page.
> > 
> > Is this correct behaviour?
> 
> It is not desirable, and the soft page offlining code
> tries to invalidate the page, but I don't think overhauling
> the way we lock and refcount page cache pages just to make
> offlining them more reliable would be worthwhile, when we
> already have a branch in the page fault handler to deal with
> these pages, anyway.

I don't have any idea about how this kind of page is left on page
cache after page offlining.  But I agree with the suggested change.

> 
> > > This can lead to programs being killed over and over
> > > and over again as they fault in the hwpoisoned page, get killed,
> > > and
> > > then get re-spawned by whatever wanted to run them.
> > > 
> > > This is particularly embarrassing when the page was offlined due to
> > > having too many corrected memory errors. Now we are killing tasks
> > > due to them trying to access memory that probably isn't even
> > > corrupted.
> > > 
> > > This problem can be avoided by invalidating the page from the page
> > > fault handler, which already has a branch for dealing with these
> > > kinds of pages. With this patch we simply pretend the page fault
> > > was successful if the page was invalidated, return to userspace,
> > > incur another page fault, read in the file from disk (to a new
> > > memory page), and then everything works again.
> > 
> > Is this worth a cc:stable?
> 
> Maybe. I don't know how far back this issue goes...

This issue should be orthogonal with recent changes on hwpoison, and
the base code targetted by this patch is unchanged since 2016 (4.10-rc1),
so this patch is simply applicable to most of the maintained stable trees
(maybe except 4.9.z).

Acked-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux