On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:36:00 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.06.22 11:15, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote: > >>> [ 917.864266] <TASK> > >>> [ 917.864961] clear_huge_page+0x147/0x270 > >>> [ 917.866236] hugetlb_fault+0x440/0xad0 > >>> [ 917.867366] handle_mm_fault+0x270/0x290 > >>> [ 917.868532] do_user_addr_fault+0x1c3/0x680 > >>> [ 917.869768] exc_page_fault+0x6c/0x160 > >>> [ 917.870912] ? asm_exc_page_fault+0x8/0x30 > >>> [ 917.872082] asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 > >>> [ 917.873220] RIP: 0033:0x7f2aeb8ba367 > >>> > >>> I don't think of a workaround for this now ... > >>> > >> > >> Could you please tell me how to reproduce this issue? > > > > You are familiar with qemu-monitor-command, so the following procedure > > should work for you: > > > > - run a process using hugepages on your VM, > > - check the guest physical address of the hugepage (page-types.c is helpful for this), > > - inject a MCE with virsh qemu-monitor-command on the guest physical address, then > > - unpoison the injected physical address. > > That's triggered via debugfs / HWPOISON_INJECT, right? > > That's a DEBUG_KERNEL option, so I'm not 100% sure if we really want to > cc stable. Sure, it's hardly a must-have. But let's also take the patch complexity&risk into account. This is one dang simple patch. Or is it. Should these things be happening outside mf_mutex? What the heck is the role of mf_mutex anyway?
