On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:09:36 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Some programs may use read(2), write(2), etc as ways to check if > >> memory is valid without getting a signal. They might not want > >> signals, which means that this feature might need to be configurable. > > > > That sounds like an appalling hack. If users need such a mechanism > > we should create some better way to do that. > > > > Appalling hack or not, it works. So, if we’re going to send a signal to user > code that looks like it originated from a bina fide architectural recoverable > fault, it needs to be recoverable. A load from a failed NVDIMM page is such > a fault. A *kernel* load is not. So we need to distinguish it somehow. Sorry for my previous mis-understanding, and i have some questions: if programs use read,write to check if if memory is valid, does it really want to cover the poison case? When for such a case, an error is returned, can the program realize it's hwposion issue not other software error and process correctly? if this is the proper action, the original posion flow in current code from read and write need to change too. -- Thanks! Aili Yao
