From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BE9E3E1228; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 13:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788959614; cv=none; b=tQg+4DGDLmF1NlqxlFvRpIOAzx5esb1Zu7MhAtfvPqTtk4uin4QvPCC4nNImYnNX688MRir9Ohi7R+DGZVxv2wzG+30xiDBtYBZ392KTQKYWue4ToiTvn35FeOz5FUxJM2V/HpsZ/qno7lgin/FkQOIQ+RGOrwYzy1WLDbMJnF8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788959614; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IZj7gcoR1BSM5qRU6zyoL1d1abYxfkHpfCAN9EDmS1M=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=lMVoML4xVFhr5+uW6tILwHOiHht6BXEyQO1Xe8TjRMZgvn1nQWoQ67vmv9Z2YnGS6sbgW3VCTrn/UPrpswI0NHfLGkDgQNvSndnZLHYbpsZNhGsVXwI+fZcNS6/rKEWKd/ssLBhcC6nn0HCDHS8go09QJhx4JuO5nWakLD7G1Yc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=m1/4Stf0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="m1/4Stf0" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1BECD1F00A3A; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 13:13:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1788959613; bh=IZj7gcoR1BSM5qRU6zyoL1d1abYxfkHpfCAN9EDmS1M=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=m1/4Stf0ONAeUDQwpGd2ObDI4Y1eUAi/bIJeo3Kg/A3Q4m++iPAtNGiq119atWnZi /1Qj8UCIt68EW/K8SkdnNb2muOzmu8IfBBZL4/DN4hb53pE4PI0oomqX+wm/Mt8q+M UYBAkF2jGPLZCEGNzHB5LJxRE7hwUQ4jmmtfEqQ8Wt28UK4W6myJBSi6sfNOPWWx6Q /iTvGzpidk91r6b78Ipmjhxg3nx52Y2hBdHDVR3sAA9sFUCqHA8PAM6LOKRQ6JBB8z Pi2OrAlsfgMSBia74jxXsVq2C4ZLCvRj8Vr0VhyJILFcI6NHxdYTmrmeiisqi5Xe0F +LS5tDzC2tsjA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] mm/memory-failure: efi: add the LINUX_EFI_POISONED_MEMORY configuration table Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Andrew Morton" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Borislav Petkov" , "Michal Hocko" , "Zi Yan" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Dave Hansen" , "Naoya Horiguchi" , "Miaohe Lin" , "Mike Rapoport" , kas@kernel.org, "Suren Baghdasaryan" , x86@kernel.org, "Vlastimil Babka" , "Brendan Jackman" , "Johannes Weiner" , "Lorenzo Stoakes" , "Ard Biesheuvel" , "David Hildenbrand" , "Liam R. Howlett" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Ilias Apalodimas" , "Breno Leitao" Cc: rmikey@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@surriel.com, harry@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: <20260909-hwpoison-kho-v4-1-359313564495@debian.org> References: <20260909-hwpoison-kho-v4-0-359313564495@debian.org> <20260909-hwpoison-kho-v4-1-359313564495@debian.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:13:30 +0000 Message-Id: <20260909131331.1BECD1F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: > Hardware-poisoned page frames are tracked only in the running kernel's > data structures, so a kexec loses them and the next kernel doesn't have > this information, thus, tripping into them again. >=20 > Add an EFI configuration table to carry that information across kexec. >=20 > It is a bitmap with one bit per EFI_POISON_UNIT_SIZE (2MiB) of physical > memory starting at phys_base, modeled on the LINUX_EFI_UNACCEPTED_MEMORY > table, and it rides the EFI system table to every kernel in the chain. > Basing the bitmap keeps a machine whose RAM starts high from paying for > the hole below it. >=20 > List the table in the x86 efi_tables[] too, so an SME host maps it > unencrypted like every other EFI table. >=20 > The Kconfig symbol has no prompt. There is nothing for a user to decide, > so it is on wherever it can be, and it only costs 64K per TiB of RAM on > a kernel that already has the EFI stub and MEMORY_FAILURE. It is > restricted to 64BIT because the unit arithmetic would need div_u64() on > 32-bit, and there is no 32-bit EFI configuration with MEMORY_FAILURE to > test that on. >=20 > This is a similar approach as used as unaccepted memory. >=20 > Suggested-by: Kiryl Shutsemau > Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues. It looks great! --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260909-hwpoison-k= ho-v4-0-359313564495@debian.org?part=3D1