Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99566-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <Ze9bWkrD6UBZ2ErV@x1n>
In-Reply-To: <Ze9bWkrD6UBZ2ErV@x1n>
From: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:26:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CADrL8HW59nt4ztY3x5G3VgpmaXQbXoXZeAjvzMp7SpsqxgDCxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG selftests/mm]
To: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>, 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, 
	Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:28=E2=80=AFPM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote=
:
>
> 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. :/

I agree; UFFDIO_POISON should not require CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

> >
> > 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?

I'm not sure about how much admins rely on the address themselves. +cc
Jiaqi Yan

It's possible for a sane hypervisor dealing with a buggy guest / guest
userspace to trigger lots of these pr_errs. Consider the case where a
guest userspace uses HugeTLB-1G, finds poison (which HugeTLB used to
ignore), and then ignores SIGBUS. It will keep getting MCEs /
SIGBUSes.

The sane hypervisor will use UFFDIO_POISON to prevent the guest from
re-accessing *real* poison, but we will still get the pr_err, and we
still keep injecting MCEs into the guest. We have observed scenarios
like this before.

>
> > 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 concer=
n
> to directly use pr_err_ratelimited().

I'm okay with any rate limiting everyone agrees on. IMO, silencing
these pr_errs if they came from UFFDIO_POISON (or, perhaps, if they
did not come from real hardware MCE events) sounds like the most
correct thing to do, but I don't mind. Just don't make UFFDIO_POISON
require CAP_SYS_ADMIN. :)

Thanks.