Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99470-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:28:26 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG selftests/mm]
Message-ID: <Ze9bWkrD6UBZ2ErV@x1n>
References: <a9e3120d-8b79-4435-b113-ceb20aa45ee2@alu.unizg.hr>
 <4a5c8d28-7f73-4c15-b288-641f0ccc91c2@redhat.com>
 <Ze8Wr2qH8V0LMi_5@x1n>
 <b5ff4c70-6379-4cc7-8c92-778d80a6a658@redhat.com>
 <Ze8fYF5I4mlUGHd9@x1n>
 <CAJHvVcie+N+4j60m_Dxh7QzbZLmsjnq2-04peuqE8VkkMq984A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJHvVcie+N+4j60m_Dxh7QzbZLmsjnq2-04peuqE8VkkMq984A@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:59:59AM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> I'd prefer not to require root or CAP_SYS_ADMIN or similar for
> UFFDIO_POISON, because those control access to lots more things
> besides, which we don't necessarily want the process using UFFD to be
> able to do. :/
> 
> Ratelimiting seems fairly reasonable to me. I do see the concern about
> dropping some addresses though.

Do you know how much could an admin rely on such addresses?  How frequent
would MCE generate normally in a sane system?

> Perhaps we can mitigate that concern by defining our own ratelimit
> interval/burst configuration?

Any details?

> Another idea would be to only ratelimit it if !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM or
> similar. Not sure if that's considered valid or not. :)

This, OTOH, sounds like an overkill..

I just checked again on the detail of ratelimit code, where we by default
it has:

#define DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL	(5 * HZ)
#define DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST		10

So it allows a 10 times burst rather than 2.. IIUC it means even if
there're continous 10 MCEs it won't get suppressed, until the 11th came, in
5 seconds interval.  I think it means it's possibly even less of a concern
to directly use pr_err_ratelimited().

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu