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: <20211105055058.3152564-1-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
 <20211105055058.3152564-4-naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> <CAHbLzkoCUs-Z9m47SnF3sR-wai3_M6R4Jkxq8bNBTdoTrkh5vA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211109005320.GA3341842@u2004>
In-Reply-To: <20211109005320.GA3341842@u2004>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:03:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkpUX9NdKz5yz8j7ej-2hh0hKSB20_E_Ug4d2r3_NC6YUA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/hwpoison: fix unpoison_memory()
To:     Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Ding Hui <dinghui@sangfor.com.cn>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:53 PM Naoya Horiguchi
<naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 03:27:55PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 10:52 PM Naoya Horiguchi
> > <naoya.horiguchi@linux.dev> wrote:
> ...
> > > @@ -1942,6 +1987,26 @@ core_initcall(memory_failure_init);
> > >                 pr_info(fmt, pfn);                      \
> > >  })
> > >
> > > +static inline int clear_page_hwpoison(struct ratelimit_state *rs, struct page *p)
> > > +{
> > > +       if (TestClearPageHWPoison(p)) {
> > > +               unpoison_pr_info("Unpoison: Software-unpoisoned page %#lx\n",
> > > +                                page_to_pfn(p), rs);
> > > +               num_poisoned_pages_dec();
> > > +               return 1;
> > > +       }
> > > +       return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int unpoison_taken_off_page(struct ratelimit_state *rs,
> > > +                                         struct page *p)
> > > +{
> > > +       if (put_page_back_buddy(p) && clear_page_hwpoison(rs, p))
> >
> > It seems there might be race condition between free and allocation to
> > kick the page out of buddy before the hwpoisoned flag is cleared IIUC?
> >
> >         CPU A                     CPU B
> > Free:                            Allocation:
> > acquire zone lock
> > put back to buddy
> > release zone lock
> >                                      acquire zone lock
> >                                      try to allocate this page
> >                                      if it is hwpoisoned then reset
> > PageBuddy (not buddy page anymore)
> >                                      release zone lock
> >
> > Did I miss something?
>
> No, this is a nice catch. CPU B finds hwpoisoned page on free list then
> calling bad_page().  So doing "put back to buddy" and clear_page_hwpoison
> inside a single zone lock should prevent this race.

Yeah, or clear the flag before putting it back to buddy? Anyway
clearing the flag under zone lock is not a big deal either.

>
> Thanks,
> Naoya Horiguchi