Re: [PATCH] mm, memory_failure: only send BUS_MCEERR_AO to early-kill process
From: HORIGUCHI NAOYA(堀口 直也)
Date: Wed May 27 2020 - 22:22:48 EST
Sorry for my late response.
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:06:41PM +0800, Wetp Zhang wrote:
> From: Zhang Yi <wetpzy@xxxxxxxxx>
> If a process don't need early-kill, it may not care the BUS_MCEERR_AO.
> Let the process to be killed when it really access the corrupted memory.
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <wetpzy@xxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for pointing this. This looks to me a bug (per-process flag
is ignored when system-wide flag is set).
> mm/memory-failure.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index a96364be8ab4..2db13d48865c 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static int kill_proc(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> struct task_struct *t = tk->tsk;
> short addr_lsb = tk->size_shift;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to hardware memory corruption\n",
> pfn, t->comm, t->pid);
> @@ -225,8 +225,9 @@ static int kill_proc(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> * This could cause a loop when the user sets SIGBUS
> * to SIG_IGN, but hopefully no one will do that?
> - ret = send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AO, (void __user *)tk->addr,
> - addr_lsb, t); /* synchronous? */
> + if ((t->flags & PF_MCE_PROCESS) && (t->flags & PF_MCE_EARLY))
> + ret = send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AO,
> + (void __user *)tk->addr, addr_lsb, t);
kill_proc() could be called only for processes that are selected by
collect_procs() with task_early_kill(). So I think that we should fix
task_early_kill(), maybe by reordering sysctl_memory_failure_early_kill
check and find_early_kill_thread() check.
static struct task_struct *task_early_kill(struct task_struct *tsk,
struct task_struct *t;
t = find_early_kill_thread(tsk);
One subtleness is to make sure that find_early_kill_thread() should distinguish
default value and explicitly set value, so we might need some modification
Can you try that?