linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:30:03 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Shaohua Li" <shli@...com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        J�r�me Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:41:38 +0800 "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why do we need srcu here? Is it enough with rcu like below?
>> >
>> > It might have a bug/room to be optimized about performance/naming.
>> > I just wanted to show my intention.
>> 
>> Yes.  rcu should work too.  But if we use rcu, it may need to be called
>> several times to make sure the swap device under us doesn't go away, for
>> example, when checking si->max in __swp_swapcount() and
>> add_swap_count_continuation().  And I found we need rcu to protect swap
>> cache radix tree array too.  So I think it may be better to use one
>> calling to srcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of multiple callings to
>> rcu_read_lock/unlock().
>
> Or use stop_machine() ;)  It's very crude but it sure is simple.  Does
> anyone have a swapoff-intensive workload?

Sorry, I don't know how to solve the problem with stop_machine().

The problem we try to resolved is that, we have a swap entry, but that
swap entry can become invalid because of swappoff between we check it
and we use it.  So we need to prevent swapoff to be run between checking
and using.

I don't know how to use stop_machine() in swapoff to wait for all users
of swap entry to finish.  Anyone can help me on this?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying