| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:58:38 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
karam.lee@....com, sangseok.lee@....com, chan.jeong@....com,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: revive swap_slot_free_notify
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 01:45:34PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:06:29PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 05:20:08PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > 2016-03-22 17:00 GMT+09:00 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:08:59PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 04:58:31PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > >> > <b430e9d1c6d4> "remove compressed copy from zram in-memory"
> > > >> > applied swap_slot_free_notify call in *end_swap_bio_read* to
> > > >> > remove duplicated memory between zram and memory.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > However, with introducing rw_page in zram <8c7f01025f7b>
> > > >> > "zram: implement rw_page operation of zram", it became void
> > > >> > because rw_page doesn't need bio.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This patch restores the function for rw_page.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
> > > >> > ---
> > > >> > mm/page_io.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> > > >> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
> > > >> > index ff74e512f029..18aac7819cc9 100644
> > > >> > --- a/mm/page_io.c
> > > >> > +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> > > >> > @@ -66,6 +66,54 @@ void end_swap_bio_write(struct bio *bio)
> > > >> > bio_put(bio);
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > +static void swap_slot_free_notify(struct page *page)
> > > >> > +{
> > > >> > + struct swap_info_struct *sis;
> > > >> > + struct gendisk *disk;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + /*
> > > >> > + * There is no guarantee that the page is in swap cache - the software
> > > >> > + * suspend code (at least) uses end_swap_bio_read() against a non-
> > > >> > + * swapcache page. So we must check PG_swapcache before proceeding with
> > > >> > + * this optimization.
> > > >> > + */
> > > >> > + if (unlikely(!PageSwapCache(page)))
> > > >> > + return;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + sis = page_swap_info(page);
> > > >> > + if (!(sis->flags & SWP_BLKDEV))
> > > >> > + return;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + /*
> > > >> > + * The swap subsystem performs lazy swap slot freeing,
> > > >> > + * expecting that the page will be swapped out again.
> > > >> > + * So we can avoid an unnecessary write if the page
> > > >> > + * isn't redirtied.
> > > >> > + * This is good for real swap storage because we can
> > > >> > + * reduce unnecessary I/O and enhance wear-leveling
> > > >> > + * if an SSD is used as the as swap device.
> > > >> > + * But if in-memory swap device (eg zram) is used,
> > > >> > + * this causes a duplicated copy between uncompressed
> > > >> > + * data in VM-owned memory and compressed data in
> > > >> > + * zram-owned memory. So let's free zram-owned memory
> > > >> > + * and make the VM-owned decompressed page *dirty*,
> > > >> > + * so the page should be swapped out somewhere again if
> > > >> > + * we again wish to reclaim it.
> > > >> > + */
> > > >> > + disk = sis->bdev->bd_disk;
> > > >> > + if (disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify) {
> > > >> > + swp_entry_t entry;
> > > >> > + unsigned long offset;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + entry.val = page_private(page);
> > > >> > + offset = swp_offset(entry);
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > + SetPageDirty(page);
> > > >> > + disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify(sis->bdev,
> > > >> > + offset);
> > > >> > + }
> > > >> > +}
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > static void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio)
> > > >> > {
> > > >> > struct page *page = bio->bi_io_vec[0].bv_page;
> > > >> > @@ -81,49 +129,7 @@ static void end_swap_bio_read(struct bio *bio)
> > > >> > }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > SetPageUptodate(page);
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > - /*
> > > >> > - * There is no guarantee that the page is in swap cache - the software
> > > >> > - * suspend code (at least) uses end_swap_bio_read() against a non-
> > > >> > - * swapcache page. So we must check PG_swapcache before proceeding with
> > > >> > - * this optimization.
> > > >> > - */
> > > >> > - if (likely(PageSwapCache(page))) {
> > > >> > - struct swap_info_struct *sis;
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > - sis = page_swap_info(page);
> > > >> > - if (sis->flags & SWP_BLKDEV) {
> > > >> > - /*
> > > >> > - * The swap subsystem performs lazy swap slot freeing,
> > > >> > - * expecting that the page will be swapped out again.
> > > >> > - * So we can avoid an unnecessary write if the page
> > > >> > - * isn't redirtied.
> > > >> > - * This is good for real swap storage because we can
> > > >> > - * reduce unnecessary I/O and enhance wear-leveling
> > > >> > - * if an SSD is used as the as swap device.
> > > >> > - * But if in-memory swap device (eg zram) is used,
> > > >> > - * this causes a duplicated copy between uncompressed
> > > >> > - * data in VM-owned memory and compressed data in
> > > >> > - * zram-owned memory. So let's free zram-owned memory
> > > >> > - * and make the VM-owned decompressed page *dirty*,
> > > >> > - * so the page should be swapped out somewhere again if
> > > >> > - * we again wish to reclaim it.
> > > >> > - */
> > > >> > - struct gendisk *disk = sis->bdev->bd_disk;
> > > >> > - if (disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify) {
> > > >> > - swp_entry_t entry;
> > > >> > - unsigned long offset;
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > - entry.val = page_private(page);
> > > >> > - offset = swp_offset(entry);
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > - SetPageDirty(page);
> > > >> > - disk->fops->swap_slot_free_notify(sis->bdev,
> > > >> > - offset);
> > > >> > - }
> > > >> > - }
> > > >> > - }
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > + swap_slot_free_notify(page);
> > > >> > out:
> > > >> > unlock_page(page);
> > > >> > bio_put(bio);
> > > >> > @@ -347,6 +353,7 @@ int swap_readpage(struct page *page)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ret = bdev_read_page(sis->bdev, swap_page_sector(page), page);
> > > >> > if (!ret) {
> > > >> > + swap_slot_free_notify(page);
> > > >> > count_vm_event(PSWPIN);
> > > >> > return 0;
> > > >> > }
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Hey Joonsoo,
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> You need to check PageUpdate() or something because bdev_read_page()
> > > >> can be asynchronous.
> > > >
> > > > I considered it but decided not to add the check :(.
> > > > Because I couldn't justify what benfit we can have with the check.
> > > > The swap_slot_free_notify is tightly coupled with zram for several
> > > > years and zram have been worked synchronously. So if bdev_read_page
> > > > returns 0, it means we already have read the page successfully.
> > > > Even, when I looked up other rw_page user, it seems there is no async
> > > > rw_page users at the moment.
> > >
> > > Yes, I also looked up other rw_page users and found that
> > > there is no async rw_page now.
> > >
> > > > If there is someone want to use *async* rw_page && *swap_slot_free_noity*
> > > > in future, we could add the check easily. But I hope anyone never use
> > > > swap_slot_free_notify any more which is mess. :(
> > >
> > > But, I think that we should add the check. If someone want it, how does
> > > he/she know about it? Even, if someone makes zram to read/write
> > > asynchronously, we can miss it easily. This is error-prone practice.
> >
> > Okay, I don't have strong against it.
> > If we really want to catch such case, let's add WARN_ON_ONCE.
>
> I'm okay with it. But, please add code comment why WARN_ON_ONCE() is
> added here.
>
> Then,
> Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>
> Thanks.
>From 45a05828a83eb6111230801a60ff973aa7ed3ebf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:34:50 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] mm: catch swap_slot_free_notify's misuse
swap_slot_free_notify works with synchronous rw_page driver(i.e,
zram) but someday, if someone implements asynchonous rw_page
driver and he want to hook swap_slot_free_notify to remove
dulicate memory, it will break current swap_slot_free_notify.
This patch catches the situation.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Acked-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
---
mm/page_io.c | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/page_io.c b/mm/page_io.c
index 18aac7819cc9..32c82cdbed8e 100644
--- a/mm/page_io.c
+++ b/mm/page_io.c
@@ -105,6 +105,13 @@ static void swap_slot_free_notify(struct page *page)
swp_entry_t entry;
unsigned long offset;
+ /*
+ * If a driver supports async rw_page and
+ * swap_slot_free_notify, swap_slot_free_notify
+ * will not work rightly.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!PageUptodate(page));
+
entry.val = page_private(page);
offset = swp_offset(entry);
--
1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists