Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] x86/{mce,mm}: Unmap the entire page if the whole page is" failed to apply to 5.7-stable tree

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

 



On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 05:00:10PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The patch below does not apply to the 5.7-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 17fae1294ad9d711b2c3dd0edef479d40c76a5e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 09:35:46 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] x86/{mce,mm}: Unmap the entire page if the whole page is
affected and poisoned

An interesting thing happened when a guest Linux instance took a machine
check. The VMM unmapped the bad page from guest physical space and
passed the machine check to the guest.

Linux took all the normal actions to offline the page from the process
that was using it. But then guest Linux crashed because it said there
was a second machine check inside the kernel with this stack trace:

do_memory_failure
   set_mce_nospec
        set_memory_uc
             _set_memory_uc
                  change_page_attr_set_clr
                       cpa_flush
                            clflush_cache_range_opt

This was odd, because a CLFLUSH instruction shouldn't raise a machine
check (it isn't consuming the data). Further investigation showed that
the VMM had passed in another machine check because is appeared that the
guest was accessing the bad page.

Fix is to check the scope of the poison by checking the MCi_MISC register.
If the entire page is affected, then unmap the page. If only part of the
page is affected, then mark the page as uncacheable.

This assumes that VMMs will do the logical thing and pass in the "whole
page scope" via the MCi_MISC register (since they unmapped the entire
page).

 [ bp: Adjust to x86/entry changes. ]

We need to "unadjust" it for the stable branches, and I dare not do it
myself :)

Would picking up the original version from the mailing list work here as
a backport?

--
Thanks,
Sasha



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux