From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, Guohanjun <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4 3/7] arm64: add support for machine check error safe
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 10:50:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yo9NX8BvQQXryHDV@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bdb1c6-5803-d9c0-9208-432027ae1d8b@huawei.com>
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:36:41AM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>
>
> 在 2022/5/25 16:30, Mark Rutland 写道:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 02:29:54PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 2022/5/13 23:26, Mark Rutland 写道:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 03:04:14AM +0000, Tong Tiangen wrote:
> > > > > During the processing of arm64 kernel hardware memory errors(do_sea()), if
> > > > > the errors is consumed in the kernel, the current processing is panic.
> > > > > However, it is not optimal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take uaccess for example, if the uaccess operation fails due to memory
> > > > > error, only the user process will be affected, kill the user process
> > > > > and isolate the user page with hardware memory errors is a better choice.
> > > >
> > > > Conceptually, I'm fine with the idea of constraining what we do for a
> > > > true uaccess, but I don't like the implementation of this at all, and I
> > > > think we first need to clean up the arm64 extable usage to clearly
> > > > distinguish a uaccess from another access.
> > >
> > > OK,using EX_TYPE_UACCESS and this extable type could be recover, this is
> > > more reasonable.
> >
> > Great.
> >
> > > For EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO, today we use it for kernel accesses in a
> > > couple of cases, such as
> > > get_user/futex/__user_cache_maint()/__user_swpX_asm(),
> >
> > Those are all user accesses.
> >
> > However, __get_kernel_nofault() and __put_kernel_nofault() use
> > EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO by way of __{get,put}_mem_asm(), so we'd need to
> > refactor that code to split the user/kernel cases higher up the callchain.
> >
> > > your suggestion is:
> > > get_user continues to use EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO and the other cases use
> > > new type EX_TYPE_FIXUP_ERR_ZERO?
> >
> > Yes, that's the rough shape. We could make the latter EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO
> > to be clearly analogous to EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO, and with that I susepct we
> > could remove EX_TYPE_FIXUP.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> According to your suggestion, i think the definition is like this:
>
> #define EX_TYPE_NONE 0
> #define EX_TYPE_FIXUP 1 --> delete
> #define EX_TYPE_BPF 2
> #define EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO 3
> #define EX_TYPE_LOAD_UNALIGNED_ZEROPAD 4
> #define EX_TYPE_UACCESS xx --> add
> #define EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO xx --> add
> [The value defined by the macro here is temporary]
Almost; you don't need to add EX_TYPE_UACCESS here, as you can use
EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO for that.
We already have:
| #define _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR(insn, fixup, err) \
| _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO(insn, fixup, err, wzr)
... and we can add:
| #define _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS(insn, fixup) \
| _ASM_EXTABLE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO(insn, fixup, wzr, wzr)
... and maybe we should use 'xzr' rather than 'wzr' for clarity.
> There are two points to modify:
>
> 1、_get_kernel_nofault() and __put_kernel_nofault() using
> EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO, Other positions using EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO
> keep unchanged.
That sounds right to me. This will require refactoring __raw_{get,put}_mem()
and __{get,put}_mem_asm().
> 2、delete EX_TYPE_FIXUP.
>
> There is no doubt about others. As for EX_TYPE_FIXUP, I think it needs to be
> retained, _cond_extable(EX_TYPE_FIXUP) is still in use in assembler.h.
We use _cond_extable for cache maintenance uaccesses, so those should be moved
over to to EX_TYPE_UACCESS_ERR_ZERO. We can rename _cond_extable to
_cond_uaccess_extable for clarity.
That will require restructuring asm-extable.h a bit. If that turns out to be
painful I'm happy to take a look.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-26 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-20 3:04 [PATCH -next v4 0/7]arm64: add machine check safe support Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 1/7] x86, powerpc: fix function define in copy_mc_to_user Tong Tiangen
2022-04-22 9:45 ` Michael Ellerman
2022-04-24 1:16 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-02 14:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-05-03 1:06 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05 1:21 ` Kefeng Wang
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 2/7] arm64: fix types in copy_highpage() Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 3/7] arm64: add support for machine check error safe Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:26 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19 6:29 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-25 8:30 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26 3:36 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-26 9:50 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2022-05-27 1:40 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 4/7] arm64: add copy_{to, from}_user to machine check safe Tong Tiangen
2022-05-04 10:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 6:39 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-05 13:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 14:33 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:31 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19 6:53 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 5/7] arm64: mte: Clean up user tag accessors Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:36 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 6/7] arm64: add {get, put}_user to machine check safe Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:39 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19 7:09 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-20 3:04 ` [PATCH -next v4 7/7] arm64: add cow " Tong Tiangen
2022-05-13 15:44 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-19 10:38 ` Tong Tiangen
2022-04-27 9:09 ` [PATCH -next v4 0/7]arm64: add machine check safe support Tong Tiangen
2022-05-04 19:58 ` (subset) " Catalin Marinas
2022-05-16 18:45 ` Catalin Marinas
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=Yo9NX8BvQQXryHDV@FVFF77S0Q05N \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tongtiangen@huawei.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.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).