Re: [PATCH v2 00/19] mm: Support huge pfnmaps

[Ankit Agrawal]

> Yes, whether a VM gets into a memory-error-consumption loop
> maliciously or accidentally, a reasonable VMM should have means to
> detect and break it.
Agreed we need a way to handle it. I suppose it can easily happen if
a malicious app in the VM handles the SIGBUS to say read/write again
among other ways.

Regarding the following two ways discussed..
> 1. remove pud and rely on the driver to re-fault PFNs that it knows
> are not poisoned (what Peter suggested), or 2. keep the pud and
> allow access to both good and bad PFNs.
As mentioned, 2. have the advantage from the performance POV.
For my understanding, what are the pros for the mechanism 1 vs 2?
Wondering it is a choice out of some technical constraints.