On 2026/3/20 7:30, Lisa Wang wrote: > After modifying truncate_error_folio(), we expect memory_failure() will > return 0 instead of MF_FAILED. Also, we want to make sure memory_failure() > signaling function is same. > > Test that memory_failure() returns 0 for guest_memfd, where > .error_remove_folio() is handled by not actually truncating, and returning > MF_DELAYED. > > In addition, test that SIGBUS signaling behavior is not changed before > and after this modification. > > There are two kinds of guest memory failure injections - madvise or > debugfs. When memory failure is injected using madvise, the > MF_ACTION_REQUIRED flag is set, and the page is mapped and dirty, the > process should get a SIGBUS. When memory is failure is injected using > debugfs, the KILL_EARLY machine check memory corruption kill policy is > set, and the page is mapped and dirty, the process should get a SIGBUS. > > Co-developed-by: Ackerley Tng <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Ackerley Tng <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Lisa Wang <[email protected]>
Should we add a testcase for hugetlbfs? It seems hugetlbfs_error_remove_folio() behaves same as shmem. Thanks. .
