linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	 Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] page table check default to warn instead of panic
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:11:50 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bDkvgifEXh9voz5oYog-rDNm2GnqTZL=-5HndOFF2CJqg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220912132322.7c486c40c6acf8eec0785c87@linux-foundation.org>

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 4:23 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 09:59:20 +0000 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Pasha Tatashin <tatashin@google.com>
> >
> > Page table check when detects errors panics the kernel. Let instead,
> > print a warning, and panic only when specifically requested via kernel
> > parameter:
> >
> >       page_table_check=panic
> >
> > The discussion about using panic vs. warn is here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220902232732.12358-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com
>
> The changelog doesn't actually describe the reason for making this
> change.  Somebody obviously wants pagetable check errors to no longer
> panic the kernel, but why??  (The same can be said of the [2/3]
> changelog).

This came from the discussion listed above. There seems to be a
consensus that we should reduce the number of BUG_ON() in the kernel,
and replace them with WARN_ON_ONCE() when possible to recover. In the
case of page_table_check we can recover, but for some it may be unsafe
because of security implications. Therefore, I would like to keep  an
option of being able to panic only because of page table check errors,
but not keeping it enabled by default.

I will add more info to the commit message.

>
> Also, should we be changing the default?  People who like the panic
> will get a big surprise when they find out that they should have added
> a kernel parameter to get the old behaviour back.  It would be less
> disruptive to default to panic unless page_table_check=warn was added.

I was thinking about this as well. I decided to change the default:
the old users will still get a warning, but going forward we will be
inline with the rest of the kernel: warn on by default, and optionally
panic.

>
> If there's a solid reason for changing the default, it should be
> changelogged.  And if that reason is generally agreed to, perhaps the
> kernel should print a warning at boot if neither page_table_check=panic
> nor page_table_check=warn were provided.  To tell people that the
> default has been changed.

I am not sure that is needed, and when do we remove that extra boot
message? This is a relatively new feature, and existing users would
still get an ugly warning about incorrect page table mappings.

Thank you,
Pasha

>
>


      reply	other threads:[~2022-09-20 18:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-11  9:59 [PATCH 0/3] page table check default to warn instead of panic Pasha Tatashin
2022-09-11  9:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/page_table_check: Check writable zero page in page table check Pasha Tatashin
2022-09-12 15:58   ` Edgecombe, Rick P
2022-09-26  8:26   ` David Hildenbrand
2022-09-11  9:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm/page_table_check: Do WARN_ON instead of BUG_ON by default Pasha Tatashin
2022-09-11 16:08   ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-09-11 20:42     ` Pasha Tatashin
2022-09-26  8:28     ` David Hildenbrand
2022-09-26  1:16   ` [mm/page_table_check] 6e807506f4: WARNING:at_mm/page_table_check.c:#page_table_check_set kernel test robot
2022-09-11  9:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] doc/vm: add information about page_table_check=panic Pasha Tatashin
2022-09-12 20:23 ` [PATCH 0/3] page table check default to warn instead of panic Andrew Morton
2022-09-20 18:11   ` Pasha Tatashin [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CA+CK2bDkvgifEXh9voz5oYog-rDNm2GnqTZL=-5HndOFF2CJqg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).