On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:28:12 -0800
Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 5:19 PM Aili Yao <yaoa...@kingsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 11:00:28 -0800
> > Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mar 8, 2021, at 10:31 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you point me at that SIGBUS code in a current kernel?
> > > >
> > > > It is in kill_me_maybe(). mce_vaddr is setup when we disassemble
> > > > whatever get_user()
> > > > or copy from user variant was in use in the kernel when the poison
> > > > memory was consumed.
> > > >
> > > > if (p->mce_vaddr != (void __user *)-1l) {
> > > > force_sig_mceerr(BUS_MCEERR_AR, p->mce_vaddr,
> > > > PAGE_SHIFT);
> > >
> > > Hmm. On the one hand, no one has complained yet. On the other hand,
> > > hardware that supports this isn’t exactly common.
> > >
> > > We may need some actual ABI design here. We also need to make sure that
> > > things like io_uring accesses or, more generally, anything using the
> > > use_mm / use_temporary_mm ends up either sending no signal or sending a
> > > signal to the right target.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Would it be any better if we used the BUS_MCEERR_AO code that goes into
> > > > siginfo?
> > >
> > > Dunno.
> >
> > I have one thought here but don't know if it's proper:
> >
> > Previous patch use force_sig_mceerr to the user process for such a
> > scenario; with this method
> > The SIGBUS can't be ignored as force_sig_mceerr() was designed to.
> >
> > If the user process don't want this signal, will it set signal config to
> > ignore?
> > Maybe we can use a send_sig_mceerr() instead of force_sig_mceerr(), if
> > process want to
> > ignore the SIGBUS, then it will ignore that, or it can also process the
> > SIGBUS?
>
> I don't think the signal blocking mechanism makes sense for this.
> Blocking a signal is for saying that, if another process sends the
> signal (or an async event like ctrl-C), then the process doesn't want
> it. Blocking doesn't block synchronous things like faults.
>
> I think we need to at least fix the existing bug before we add more
> signals. AFAICS the MCE_IN_KERNEL_COPYIN code is busted for kernel
> threads.
Got this, Thanks!
I read https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/write.2.html, and it seems the
write syscall is not expecting
an signal, maybe a specific error code for this scenario is enough.
--
Thanks!
Aili Yao
