Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wiMs=A90np0Hv5WjHY8HXQWpgtuq-xrrJvyk7_pNB4meg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1962EE67-8AD1-409D-963A-4F1E1AB3B865@amacapital.net> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F60EBB6@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F7F60EBB6@ORSMSX115.amr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sat, 2 May 2020 17:29:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrW5zNLOrhOS69xeb3ANa0HVAW5+xaHvG2CA8iFy1ByHKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        "Tsaur, Erwin" <erwin.tsaur@intel.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:09 AM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Now maybe copy_to_user() should *always* work this way, but I=E2=80=99m=
 not convinced.
> > Certainly put_user() shouldn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=94 the result wouldn=E2=
=80=99t even be well defined. And I=E2=80=99m
> >  unconvinced that it makes much sense for the majority of copy_to_user(=
) callers
> >  that are also directly accessing the source structure.
>
> One case that might work is copy_to_user() that's copying from the kernel=
 page cache
> to the user in response to a read(2) system call.  Action would be to che=
ck if we could
> re-read from the file system to a different page. If not, return -EIO. Ei=
ther way ditch the
> poison page from the page cache.
>

I think that, before we do too much design of the semantics of just
the copy function, we need a design for the whole system.
Specifically:

When the kernel finds out that a kernel page is bad (via #MC or via
any other mechanism), what does the kernel do?  Does it unmap it?
Does it replace it with a dummy page?  Does it leave it there?

When a copy function hits a bad page and the page is not yet known to
be bad, what does it do?  (I.e. the page was believed to be fine but
the copy function gets #MC.)  Does it unmap it right away?  What does
it return?

When a copy function hits a page that is already known to be bad
because the kernel got the "oh crap, bad page" notification earlier,
what does it do?  Return -EIO?  Take some fancier action under the
assumption that it's called in a preemptible, IRQs-on context, whereas
the original #MC or other hardware notification may have come at a
less opportune time?