Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Jue Wang]

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:08:52 -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> KVM apparently passes a machine check into the guest. Though it seems
> to be misisng the MCG_STATUS information to tell the guest whether this
> is an "Action Required" machine check, or an "Action Optional" (i.e.
> whether the poison was found synchonously by execution of the current
> instruction, or asynchronously).

The KVM_X86_SET_MCE ioctl takes a parameter of struct kvm_x86_mce, hypervisor
can set with necessary semantics.

1140 #ifdef KVM_CAP_MCE
1141 /* x86 MCE */
1142 struct kvm_x86_mce {
1143         __u64 status;
1144         __u64 addr;
1145         __u64 misc;
1146         __u64 mcg_status;
1147         __u8 bank;
1148         __u8 pad1[7];
1149         __u64 pad2[3];
1150 };
1151 #endif

> > Are we documenting somewhere: "if your process gets a SIGBUS and this
> > and that, which means your page got offlined, you should do this and
> > that to recover"?

> Essentially it boils down to:
> SIGBUS handler gets additional data giving virtual address that has gone away

> 1) Can the application replace the lost page?
> Use mmap(addr, MAP_FIXED, ...) to map a fresh page into the gap
> and fill with replacement data. This case can return from SIGBUS
> handler to re-execute failed instruction
> 2) Can the application continue in degraded mode w/o the lost page?
> Hunt down pointers to lost page and update structures to say
> "this data lost". Use siglongjmp() to go to preset recovery path
> 3) Can the application shut down gracefully?
> Record details of the lost page. Inform next-of-kin. Exit.
> 4) Default - just exit
Two possible addition to these great points:
5) If for some reason the page cannot be unmapped (e.g.,
either losing to much memory like hugetlbfs 1G pages, or
THP split failure for SHMEM THP), kernel maintains a
consistent semantic (i.e., MCE SIGBUS with vaddr) to all future
accesses from user space, by leaving the hwpoisoned page
mapped or in the radix tree.
6). If for some reason the vaddr is not available upon the
first MCE recovery and page is unmapped, kernel provides
correct semantic (MCE SIGBUS with vaddr) in subsequent
page faults from user space accessing the same vaddr.

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 07:46:49AM -0700, Jue Wang wrote:
> I can see this is useful in other types of domains, e.g., on multi-tenant cloud
> servers where many VMs are collocated on the same host,
> with proper recovery + live migration, a single MCE would only affect a single
> VM at most.
> 
> Another type of generic use case may be services that can tolerate
> abrupt crash,
> i.e., they periodically save checkpoints to persistent storage or are stateless
> services in nature and are managed by some process manager to automatically
> restart and resume from where the work was left at when crashed.

Yap, thanks for those.

So I do see a disconnect between us doing those features in the kernel
and not really seeing how people use them. So this helps, I guess the VM
angle will become important real soon - if not already - so hopefully
we'll get more feedback in the future.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Jue Wang]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:10 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:47:21PM -0700, Jue Wang wrote:
> > This path is when EPT #PF finds accesses to a hwpoisoned page and
> > sends SIGBUS to user space (KVM exits into user space) with the same
> > semantic as if regular #PF found access to a hwpoisoned page.
> >
> > The KVM_X86_SET_MCE ioctl actually injects a machine check into the guest.
> >
> > We are in process to launch a product with MCE recovery capability in
> > a KVM based virtualization product and plan to expand the scope of the
> > application of it in the near future.
>
> Any pointers to code or is this all non-public? Any text on what that
> product does with the MCEs?

These are non-public at this point.

User-facing docs and blog post are expected to be released towards the
launch (i.e., in 3-4 months from now).
>
> > The in-memory database and analytical domain are definitely using it.
> > A couple examples:
> > SAP HANA - as we've tested and planned to launch as a strategic
> > enterprise use case with MCE recovery capability in our product
> > SQL server - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2967651/inf-sql-server-may-display-memory-corruption-and-recovery-errors
>
> Aha, so they register callbacks for the processes to exec on a memory
> error. Good to know, thanks for those.
My other 2 cents:

I can see this is useful in other types of domains, e.g., on multi-tenant cloud
servers where many VMs are collocated on the same host,
with proper recovery + live migration, a single MCE would only affect a single
VM at most.

Another type of generic use case may be services that can tolerate
abrupt crash,
i.e., they periodically save checkpoints to persistent storage or are stateless
services in nature and are managed by some process manager to automatically
restart and resume from where the work was left at when crashed.

Thanks,
-Jue
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:47:21PM -0700, Jue Wang wrote:
> This path is when EPT #PF finds accesses to a hwpoisoned page and
> sends SIGBUS to user space (KVM exits into user space) with the same
> semantic as if regular #PF found access to a hwpoisoned page.
> 
> The KVM_X86_SET_MCE ioctl actually injects a machine check into the guest.
> 
> We are in process to launch a product with MCE recovery capability in
> a KVM based virtualization product and plan to expand the scope of the
> application of it in the near future.

Any pointers to code or is this all non-public? Any text on what that
product does with the MCEs?

> The in-memory database and analytical domain are definitely using it.
> A couple examples:
> SAP HANA - as we've tested and planned to launch as a strategic
> enterprise use case with MCE recovery capability in our product
> SQL server - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2967651/inf-sql-server-may-display-memory-corruption-and-recovery-errors

Aha, so they register callbacks for the processes to exec on a memory
error. Good to know, thanks for those.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:13:03PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Even if no applications ever do anything with it, it is still useful to avoid
> crashing the whole system and just terminate one application/guest.

True.

> There's one more item on my long term TODO list. Add fixups so that
> copy_to_user() from poison in the page cache doesn't crash, but just
> checks to see if the page was clean .. .in which case re-read from the
> filesystem into a different physical page and retire the old page ... the
> read can now succeed. If the page is dirty, then fail the read (and retire
> the page ... need to make sure filesystem knows the data for the page
> was lost so subsequent reads return -EIO or something).

Makes sense.

> Page cache occupies enough memory that it is a big enough
> source of system crashes that could be avoided. I'm not sure
> if there are any other obvious cases after this ... it all gets into
> diminishing returns ... not really worth it to handle a case that
> only occupies 0.00002% of memory.

Ack.

> See above. With core counts continuing to increase, the cloud service
> providers really want to see fewer events that crash the whole physical
> machine (taking down dozens, or hundreds, of guest VMs).

Yap.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Jue Wang]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:07:22 +0200, Petkov, Borislav wrote:

>> KVM apparently passes a machine check into the guest.

> Ah, there it is:

> static void kvm_send_hwpoison_signal(unsigned long address, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
>         send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)address, PAGE_SHIFT, tsk);
> }

This path is when EPT #PF finds accesses to a hwpoisoned page and
sends SIGBUS to user space (KVM exits into user space) with the same
semantic as if regular #PF found access to a hwpoisoned page.

The KVM_X86_SET_MCE ioctl actually injects a machine check into the guest.

We are in process to launch a product with MCE recovery capability in
a KVM based virtualization product and plan to expand the scope of the
application of it in the near future.

> So what I'm missing with all this fun is, yeah, sure, we have this
> facility out there but who's using it? Is anyone even using it at all?

The in-memory database and analytical domain are definitely using it.
A couple examples:
SAP HANA - as we've tested and planned to launch as a strategic
enterprise use case with MCE recovery capability in our product
SQL server - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2967651/inf-sql-server-may-display-memory-corruption-and-recovery-errors


Cheers,
-Jue

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Jue Wang]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 12:07:22 +0200, Petkov, Borislav wrote:

>> KVM apparently passes a machine check into the guest.

> Ah, there it is:

> static void kvm_send_hwpoison_signal(unsigned long address, struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
>         send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)address, PAGE_SHIFT, tsk);
> }

This path is when EPT #PF finds accesses to a hwpoisoned page and
sends SIGBUS to user space (KVM exits into user space) with the same
semantic as if regular #PF found access to a hwpoisoned page.

The KVM_X86_SET_MCE ioctl actually injects a machine check into the guest.

We are in process to launch a product with MCE recovery capability in
a KVM based virtualization product and plan to expand the scope of the
application of it in the near future.

> So what I'm missing with all this fun is, yeah, sure, we have this
> facility out there but who's using it? Is anyone even using it at all?

The in-memory database and analytical domain are definitely using it.
A couple examples:
SAP HANA - as we've tested and planned to launch as a strategic
enterprise use case with MCE recovery capability in our product
SQL server - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2967651/inf-sql-server-may-display-memory-corruption-and-recovery-errors


Cheers,
-Jue

RE: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Luck, Tony]

> So what I'm missing with all this fun is, yeah, sure, we have this
> facility out there but who's using it? Is anyone even using it at all?

Even if no applications ever do anything with it, it is still useful to avoid
crashing the whole system and just terminate one application/guest.

> If so, does it even make sense, does it need improvements, etc?

There's one more item on my long term TODO list. Add fixups so that
copy_to_user() from poison in the page cache doesn't crash, but just
checks to see if the page was clean .. .in which case re-read from the
filesystem into a different physical page and retire the old page ... the
read can now succeed. If the page is dirty, then fail the read (and retire
the page ... need to make sure filesystem knows the data for the page
was lost so subsequent reads return -EIO or something).

Page cache occupies enough memory that it is a big enough
source of system crashes that could be avoided. I'm not sure
if there are any other obvious cases after this ... it all gets into
diminishing returns ... not really worth it to handle a case that
only occupies 0.00002% of memory.

> Because from where I stand it all looks like we do all these fancy
> recovery things but is userspace even paying attention or using them or
> whatever...

See above. With core counts continuing to increase, the cloud service
providers really want to see fewer events that crash the whole physical
machine (taking down dozens, or hundreds, of guest VMs).

-Tony

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:08:52AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Also not clear to me either ... but sending a SIGBUS to a kthread isn't
> going to do anything useful. So avoiding doing that is another worthy
> goal.

Ack.

> With these patches nothing gets killed when kernel touches user poison.
> If this is in a regular system call then these patches will return EFAULT
> to the user (but now that I see EHWPOISON exists that looks like a better
> choice - so applications can distinguish the "I just used an invalid address in
> a parameter to a syscall" from "This isn't my fault, the memory broke".

Yap, makes sense.

> KVM apparently passes a machine check into the guest.

Ah, there it is:

static void kvm_send_hwpoison_signal(unsigned long address, struct task_struct *tsk)
{
        send_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)address, PAGE_SHIFT, tsk);
}

> Though it seems to be misisng the MCG_STATUS information to tell
> the guest whether this is an "Action Required" machine check, or an
> "Action Optional" (i.e. whether the poison was found synchonously by
> execution of the current instruction, or asynchronously).

Yeah, someone needs to deal with that sooner or later, considering how
virt is becoming ubiquitous.

> There is the ancient Documentation/vm/hwpoison.rst from 2009 ... nothing
> seems wrong in that, but could use some updates.

Ah yap, that.

So what I'm missing with all this fun is, yeah, sure, we have this
facility out there but who's using it? Is anyone even using it at all?

If so, does it even make sense, does it need improvements, etc?

Because from where I stand it all looks like we do all these fancy
recovery things but is userspace even paying attention or using them or
whatever...

> I don't know how much detail we might want to go into on recovery
> stratgies for applications.

Perhaps an example or two how userspace is supposed to use it...

> In terms of production s/w there was one ISV who prototyped recovery
> for their application but last time I checked didn't enable it in the
> production version.

See, one and it hasn't even enabled it. So it all feels like a lot of
wasted energy to me to do all those and keep 'em working. But maybe I'm
missing the big picture and someone would come and say, no, Boris, we
use this and this and that is our feedback...

> Essentially it boils down to:
> SIGBUS handler gets additional data giving virtual address that has gone away
> 
> 1) Can the application replace the lost page?
> 	Use mmap(addr, MAP_FIXED, ...) to map a fresh page into the gap
> 	and fill with replacement data. This case can return from SIGBUS
> 	handler to re-execute failed instruction
> 2) Can the application continue in degraded mode w/o the lost page?
> 	Hunt down pointers to lost page and update structures to say
> 	"this data lost". Use siglongjmp() to go to preset recovery path
> 3) Can the application shut down gracefully?
> 	Record details of the lost page. Inform next-of-kin. Exit.
> 4) Default - just exit

Right and this should probably start with "Hey userspace folks, here's
what you can do when you get a hwpoison signal and here's how we
envision this recovery to work" and then we can all discuss and converge
on an agreeable solution which is actually used and there will be
selftests and so on and so on...

But what the h*ll do I know.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Luck, Tony]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:49:58AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:43:10PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:18:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:02:34PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > > Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
> > > > hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
> > > > address space is not the right semantic.
> > > 
> > > What does that mean exactly?
> > 
> > Andy said that a task could check a memory range for poison by
> > doing:
> > 
> > 	ret = write(fd, buf, size);
> > 	if (ret == size) {
> > 		memory range is all good
> > 	}
> > 
> > That doesn't work if the kernel sends a SIGBUS.
> > 
> > It doesn't seem a likely scenario ... but Andy is correct that
> > the above ought to work.
> 
> We need to document properly what this is aiming to fix. He said
> something yesterday along the lines of kthread_use_mm() hitting a SIGBUS
> when a kthread "attaches" to an address space. I'm still unclear as to
> how exactly that happens - there are only a handful of kthread_use_mm()
> users in the tree...

Also not clear to me either ... but sending a SIGBUS to a kthread isn't
going to do anything useful. So avoiding doing that is another worthy
goal.

> > Yes. This is for kernel reading memory belongng to "current" task.
> 
> Provided "current" is really the task to which the poison page belongs.
> That kthread_use_mm() thing sounded like the wrong task gets killed. But that
> needs more details.

With these patches nothing gets killed when kernel touches user poison.
If this is in a regular system call then these patches will return EFAULT
to the user (but now that I see EHWPOISON exists that looks like a better
choice - so applications can distinguish the "I just used an invalid address in
a parameter to a syscall" from "This isn't my fault, the memory broke".

> > Same in that the page gets unmapped. Different in that there
> > is no SIGBUS if the kernel did the access for the user.
> 
> What is even the actual use case with sending tasks SIGBUS on poison
> consumption? KVM? Others?

KVM apparently passes a machine check into the guest. Though it seems
to be misisng the MCG_STATUS information to tell the guest whether this
is an "Action Required" machine check, or an "Action Optional" (i.e.
whether the poison was found synchonously by execution of the current
instruction, or asynchronously).

> Are we documenting somewhere: "if your process gets a SIGBUS and this
> and that, which means your page got offlined, you should do this and
> that to recover"?

There is the ancient Documentation/vm/hwpoison.rst from 2009 ... nothing
seems wrong in that, but could use some updates.  I don't know how much
detail we might want to go into on recovery stratgies for applications.
In terms of production s/w there was one ISV who prototyped recovery
for their application but last time I checked didn't enable it in the
production version.

Essentially it boils down to:
SIGBUS handler gets additional data giving virtual address that has gone away

1) Can the application replace the lost page?
	Use mmap(addr, MAP_FIXED, ...) to map a fresh page into the gap
	and fill with replacement data. This case can return from SIGBUS
	handler to re-execute failed instruction
2) Can the application continue in degraded mode w/o the lost page?
	Hunt down pointers to lost page and update structures to say
	"this data lost". Use siglongjmp() to go to preset recovery path
3) Can the application shut down gracefully?
	Record details of the lost page. Inform next-of-kin. Exit.
4) Default - just exit

-Tony

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:43:10PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:18:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:02:34PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
> > > hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
> > > address space is not the right semantic.
> > 
> > What does that mean exactly?
> 
> Andy said that a task could check a memory range for poison by
> doing:
> 
> 	ret = write(fd, buf, size);
> 	if (ret == size) {
> 		memory range is all good
> 	}
> 
> That doesn't work if the kernel sends a SIGBUS.
> 
> It doesn't seem a likely scenario ... but Andy is correct that
> the above ought to work.

We need to document properly what this is aiming to fix. He said
something yesterday along the lines of kthread_use_mm() hitting a SIGBUS
when a kthread "attaches" to an address space. I'm still unclear as to
how exactly that happens - there are only a handful of kthread_use_mm()
users in the tree...

> Yes. This is for kernel reading memory belongng to "current" task.

Provided "current" is really the task to which the poison page belongs.
That kthread_use_mm() thing sounded like the wrong task gets killed. But that
needs more details.

> Same in that the page gets unmapped. Different in that there
> is no SIGBUS if the kernel did the access for the user.

What is even the actual use case with sending tasks SIGBUS on poison
consumption? KVM? Others?

Are we documenting somewhere: "if your process gets a SIGBUS and this
and that, which means your page got offlined, you should do this and
that to recover"?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Luck, Tony]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 11:18:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:02:34PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
> > hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
> > address space is not the right semantic.
> 
> What does that mean exactly?

Andy said that a task could check a memory range for poison by
doing:

	ret = write(fd, buf, size);
	if (ret == size) {
		memory range is all good
	}

That doesn't work if the kernel sends a SIGBUS.

It doesn't seem a likely scenario ... but Andy is correct that
the above ought to work.

> 
> From looking at the code, that is this conditional:
> 
>         if (t == EX_HANDLER_UACCESS && regs && is_copy_from_user(regs)) {
>                 m->kflags |= MCE_IN_KERNEL_RECOV;
>                 m->kflags |= MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN;
> 
> so what does the above have to do with syscall params?

Most "copy from user" instances are the result of a system call parameter
(e.g. "buf" in the write(2) example above).

> If it is about us being in ring 0 and touching user memory and eating
> poison in same *user* memory while doing so, then sure, that makes
> sense.

Yes. This is for kernel reading memory belongng to "current" task.

> > So stop doing that. Add a new kill_me_never() call back that
> > simply unmaps and offlines the poison page.
> 
> Right, that's the same as handling poisoned user memory.

Same in that the page gets unmapped. Different in that there
is no SIGBUS if the kernel did the access for the user.

-Tony

Re: [PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:02:34PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
> hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
> address space is not the right semantic.

What does that mean exactly?

From looking at the code, that is this conditional:

        if (t == EX_HANDLER_UACCESS && regs && is_copy_from_user(regs)) {
                m->kflags |= MCE_IN_KERNEL_RECOV;
                m->kflags |= MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN;

so what does the above have to do with syscall params?

If it is about us being in ring 0 and touching user memory and eating
poison in same *user* memory while doing so, then sure, that makes
sense.

> So stop doing that. Add a new kill_me_never() call back that
> simply unmaps and offlines the poison page.

Right, that's the same as handling poisoned user memory.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

[PATCH 3/4] mce/copyin: fix to not SIGBUS when copying from user hits poison

[Tony Luck]

Andy Lutomirski pointed out that sending SIGBUS to tasks that
hit poison in the kernel copying syscall parameters from user
address space is not the right semantic.

So stop doing that. Add a new kill_me_never() call back that
simply unmaps and offlines the poison page.

current-mce_vaddr is no longer used, so drop this field

---

Needs to be combined with other patches for bisectability
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c     | 35 ++++++++++++++++--------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/severity.c |  2 --
 include/linux/sched.h              |  1 -
 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
index 7962355436da..1570310cadab 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
@@ -1263,32 +1263,32 @@ static void kill_me_maybe(struct callback_head *cb)
 	if (!p->mce_ripv)
 		flags |= MF_MUST_KILL;
 
-	if (!memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags) &&
-	    !(p->mce_kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)) {
+	if (!memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags)) {
 		set_mce_nospec(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, p->mce_whole_page);
 		sync_core();
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
-		force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr, PAGE_SHIFT);
-	} else {
-		pr_err("Memory error not recovered");
-		kill_me_now(cb);
-	}
+	pr_err("Memory error not recovered");
+	kill_me_now(cb);
 }
 
-static void queue_task_work(struct mce *m, int kill_current_task)
+static void kill_me_never(struct callback_head *cb)
+{
+	struct task_struct *p = container_of(cb, struct task_struct, mce_kill_me);
+
+	pr_err("Kernel accessed poison in user space at %llx\n", p->mce_addr);
+	if (!memory_failure(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, 0))
+		set_mce_nospec(p->mce_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT, p->mce_whole_page);
+}
+
+static void queue_task_work(struct mce *m, void (*func)(struct callback_head *))
 {
 	current->mce_addr = m->addr;
 	current->mce_kflags = m->kflags;
 	current->mce_ripv = !!(m->mcgstatus & MCG_STATUS_RIPV);
 	current->mce_whole_page = whole_page(m);
-
-	if (kill_current_task)
-		current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_now;
-	else
-		current->mce_kill_me.func = kill_me_maybe;
+	current->mce_kill_me.func = func;
 
 	task_work_add(current, &current->mce_kill_me, TWA_RESUME);
 }
@@ -1426,7 +1426,10 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		/* If this triggers there is no way to recover. Die hard. */
 		BUG_ON(!on_thread_stack() || !user_mode(regs));
 
-		queue_task_work(&m, kill_current_task);
+		if (kill_current_task)
+			queue_task_work(&m, kill_me_now);
+		else
+			queue_task_work(&m, kill_me_maybe);
 
 	} else {
 		/*
@@ -1444,7 +1447,7 @@ noinstr void do_machine_check(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		}
 
 		if (m.kflags & MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN)
-			queue_task_work(&m, kill_current_task);
+			queue_task_work(&m, kill_me_never);
 	}
 out:
 	mce_wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCG_STATUS, 0);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/severity.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/severity.c
index 83df991314c5..47810d12f040 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/severity.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/severity.c
@@ -251,8 +251,6 @@ static bool is_copy_from_user(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	if (fault_in_kernel_space(addr))
 		return false;
 
-	current->mce_vaddr = (void __user *)addr;
-
 	return true;
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index ef00bb22164c..2d213b52730c 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1358,7 +1358,6 @@ struct task_struct {
 #endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
-	void __user			*mce_vaddr;
 	__u64				mce_kflags;
 	u64				mce_addr;
 	__u64				mce_ripv : 1,
-- 
2.29.2