Re: [PATCH RFC v2 6/7] KVM: selftests: Add memory failure tests in guest_memfd_test

[Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>]

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 <ackerleytng@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lisa Wang <wyihan@google.com>

Should we add a testcase for hugetlbfs? It seems hugetlbfs_error_remove_folio() behaves same as shmem.

Thanks.
.