> Some processes dont't want to be killed early, but in "Action Required"
> case, those also may be killed by BUS_MCEERR_AO when sharing memory
> with other which is accessing the fail memory.
> And sending SIGBUS with BUS_MCEERR_AO for action required error is
> strange, so ignore the non-current processes here.
>
> Suggested-by: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horigu...@nec.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wetp Zhang <wetp...@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> mm/memory-failure.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> index a96364be8ab4..dd3862fcf2e9 100644
> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> @@ -210,14 +210,17 @@ static int kill_proc(struct to_kill *tk, unsigned long
> pfn, int flags)
> {
> struct task_struct *t = tk->tsk;
> short addr_lsb = tk->size_shift;
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
>
> - pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to hardware
> memory corruption\n",
> - pfn, t->comm, t->pid);
> + if ((t->mm == current->mm) || !(flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED))
> + pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: Sending SIGBUS to %s:%d due to
> hardware memory corruption\n",
> + pfn, t->comm, t->pid);
Maybe we can generalize the message condition for better readability.
Thought a bit but did not get any other idea.
>
> - if ((flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) && t->mm == current->mm) {
> - ret = force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, (void __user *)tk->addr,
> - addr_lsb);
> + if (flags & MF_ACTION_REQUIRED) {
> + if (t->mm == current->mm)
> + ret = force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR,
> + (void __user *)tk->addr, addr_lsb);
> + /* send no signal to non-current processes */
> } else {
> /*
> * Don't use force here, it's convenient if the signal
> --
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.li...@gmail.com>
