Re: [PATCH] mm,hwpoison: return -EBUSY when page already poisoned

Oscar Salvador
2021-02-24T10:32:47Z

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 03:16:19PM +0800, Aili Yao wrote:
> When the page is already poisoned, another memory_failure() call in the
> same page now return 0, meaning OK. For nested memory mce handling, this
> behavior may lead real serious problem, Example:

I have some questions:

> 1.When LCME is enabled, and there are two processes A && B running on
> different core X && Y separately, which will access one same page, then
> the page corrupted when process A access it, a MCE will be rasied to
> core X and the error process is just underway.

When !LMCE, that is not a problem because new MCE needs to wait for the ongoing MCE?

> 2.Then B access the page and trigger another MCE to core Y, it will also
> do error process, it will see TestSetPageHWPoison be true, and 0 is
> returned.

For non-nested calls, that is no problem because the page will be taken out
of business(unmapped from the processes), right? So no more MCE are possible.

>
> 3.The kill_me_maybe will check the return:
>
> 1244 static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
> 1245 {
>
> 1254 if (!memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags) &&
> 1255 !(p->mce_kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)) {
> 1256 set_mce_nospec(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT,

So, IIUC, in case of a LMCE nested call, the second MCE will reach here.
set_mce_nospec() will either mark the underlying page as not mapped/cached.

Should not have memory_failure()->hwpoison_user_mappings() unmapped the page
from both process A and B? Or this is in case the ongoing MCE(process A) has
not still unmapped anything, so process B can still access this page.

So with your change, process B will be sent a SIGBUG, while process A is still
handling the MCE, right?

> p->mce_whole_page);
> 1257 sync_core();
> 1258 return;
> 1259 }
>
> 1267 }
>
> 4. The error process for B will end, and may nothing happened if
> kill-early is not set, We may let the wrong data go into effect.
>
> For other cases which care the return value of memory_failure() should
> check why they want to process a memory error which have already been
> processed. This behavior seems reasonable.
>
> In kill_me_maybe, log the fact about the memory may not recovered, and
> we will kill the related process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c | 2 ++
> mm/memory-failure.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> index e133ce1e562b..db4afc5bf15a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> @@ -1259,6 +1259,8 @@ static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
> }
>
> if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
> + pr_err("Memory error may not recovered: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to hardware memory corruption\n",
> + p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, p->comm, p->pid);
> force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr, PAGE_SHIFT);
> } else {
> pr_err("Memory error not recovered");
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index e9481632fcd1..06f006174b8c 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -1224,7 +1224,7 @@ static int memory_failure_hugetlb(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> if (TestSetPageHWPoison(head)) {
> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n",
> pfn);
> - return 0;
> + return -EBUSY;

As David said, madvise_inject_error() will start returning -EBUSY now in case
we madvise(MADV_HWPOISON) on an already hwpoisoned page.

AFAICS, memory_failure() can return 0, -Eerrors, and MF_XXX.
Would it make sense to unify that? That way we could declare error codes that
make somse sense (like MF_ALREADY_HWPOISONED).

--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3