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;
Date:   Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:25:02 +0800
From:   Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "yangfeng1@kingsoft.com" <yangfeng1@kingsoft.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yaoaili@kingsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/fault: Send a SIGBUS to user process always for
 hwpoison page access.
Message-ID: <20210309102502.27af8da9@alex-virtual-machine>
In-Reply-To: <20210309101452.281af49d@alex-virtual-machine>
References: <20210308174912.4ac9029a@alex-virtual-machine>
        <8F3F763F-59CC-4E25-B4DE-89CD0632F754@amacapital.net>
        <4fc1b4e8f1fb4c8c81f280db09178797@intel.com>
        <20210309101452.281af49d@alex-virtual-machine>
Organization: kingsoft
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 10:14:52 +0800
Aili Yao <yaoaili@kingsoft.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:31:07 +0000
> "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Can you point me at that SIGBUS code in a current kernel?    
> > 
> > It is in kill_me_maybe().  mce_vaddr is setup when we disassemble whatever get_user()
> > or copy from user variant was in use in the kernel when the poison memory was consumed.
> > 
> >         if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
> >                 force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr, PAGE_SHIFT);
> > 
> > Would it be any better if we used the BUS_MCEERR_AO code that goes into siginfo?
> > 
> > That would make it match up better with what happens when poison is found
> > asynchronously by the patrol scrubber. I.e. the semantics are:
> > 
> > AR: You just touched poison at this address and need to do something about that.
> > AO: Just letting you know that you have some poison at the address in siginfo.
> > 
> > -Tony  
> 
> Is the kill action for this scenario in memory_failure()?

Does the current logic kill the process twice for this scenario ?
I am confused.

-- 
Thanks!
Aili Yao