On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 06:27:44AM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 11/04/22 02:10, HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也) wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 08:01:25PM +0000, James Houghton wrote:
> > > This change is very similar to the change that was made for shmem [1],
> > > and it solves the same problem but for HugeTLBFS instead.
> > >
> > > Currently, when poison is found in a HugeTLB page, the page is removed
> > > from the page cache. That means that attempting to map or read that
> > > hugepage in the future will result in a new hugepage being allocated
> > > instead of notifying the user that the page was poisoned. As [1] states,
> > > this is effectively memory corruption.
> > >
> > > The fix is to leave the page in the page cache. If the user attempts to
> > > use a poisoned HugeTLB page with a syscall, the syscall will fail with
> > > EIO, the same error code that shmem uses. For attempts to map the page,
> > > the thread will get a BUS_MCEERR_AR SIGBUS.
> > >
> > > [1]: commit a76054266661 ("mm: shmem: don't truncate page if memory failure happens")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I did some testing and found no issue. So I agree with this patch.
> > Thank you very much.
> >
> > Tested-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > As for whether to go with HGM patchset or not, I have no strong opinion.
> > As you stated in another email this patch is correct without HGM patch,
> > so it's OK to me to make this merged first.
>
> Thanks Naoya.
>
> This is a late thought, but ...
> Should this patch and Yang Shi's shmem patch be backported to stable releases?
> Both address potential data corruption/loss, so it certainly seems like
> stable material.
Yes, I agree that backporting these could be helpful.
So I think that I'll try to backport commit a7605426666 and its dependencies
to 5.15 (and older LTS if possible). For this patch, just adding "Cc: stable"
should be enough for now.
Thanks,
Naoya Horiguchi
