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?
--
Thanks!
Aili Yao
