linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -rt] avoid deadlock related with PG_nonewrefs and swap

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1206526180.8514.491.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:09:40 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, hugh <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt] avoid deadlock related with PG_nonewrefs and
	swap_lock

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 10:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 11:24 -0700, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > I've updated the patch. Could you please review it?
> > 
> > I'm also thinking that it can be in the mainline because it makes
> > the lock period shorter, correct?
> 
> Possibly yeah, Nick, Hugh?
> 
> > ---
> > From: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
> > 
> > There is a deadlock scenario; remove_mapping() vs free_swap_and_cache().
> > remove_mapping() turns PG_nonewrefs bit on, then locks swap_lock.
> > free_swap_and_cache() locks swap_lock, then wait to turn PG_nonewrefs bit
> > off in find_get_page().
> > 
> > swap_lock can be unlocked before calling find_get_page().
> > 
> > In remove_exclusive_swap_page(), there is similar lock sequence;
> > swap_lock, then PG_nonewrefs bit. swap_lock can be unlocked before
> > turning PG_nonewrefs bit on.
> 
> I worry about this, Once we free the swap entry with swap_entry_free(),
> and drop the swap_lock, another task is basically free to re-use that
> swap location and try to insert another page in that same spot in
> add_to_swap() - read_swap_cache_async() can't race because it would mean
> it still has a swap entry pinned.

D'oh of course it can race, otherwise the add_to_swap() vs
read_swap_cache_async() race wouldn't exist.

Still, given that add_to_swap() handles the race I suspect the other end
does the right thing as well.

> However, add_to_swap() can already handle the race, because it used to
> race against read_swap_cache_async(). It also swap_free()s the entry so
> as to not leak entries. So I think this is indeed correct.
> 
> [ I ought to find some time to port the concurrent page-cache patches on
>   top of Nick's latest lockless series, Hugh's suggestion makes the
>   speculative get much nicer. ]
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@...jp.nec.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> 
> > ---
> >  mm/swapfile.c |   10 ++++++----
> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> > index 5036b70..6fbc77e 100644
> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@ int remove_exclusive_swap_page(struct page *page)
> >  	/* Is the only swap cache user the cache itself? */
> >  	retval = 0;
> >  	if (p->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)] == 1) {
> > +		spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  		/* Recheck the page count with the swapcache lock held.. */
> >  		lock_page_ref_irq(page);
> >  		if ((page_count(page) == 2) && !PageWriteback(page)) {
> > @@ -374,8 +375,8 @@ int remove_exclusive_swap_page(struct page *page)
> >  			retval = 1;
> >  		}
> >  		unlock_page_ref_irq(page);
> > -	}
> > -	spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> > +	} else
> > +		spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  
> >  	if (retval) {
> >  		swap_free(entry);
> > @@ -400,13 +401,14 @@ void free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entry)
> >  	p = swap_info_get(entry);
> >  	if (p) {
> >  		if (swap_entry_free(p, swp_offset(entry)) == 1) {
> > +			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  			page = find_get_page(&swapper_space, entry.val);
> >  			if (page && unlikely(TestSetPageLocked(page))) {
> >  				page_cache_release(page);
> >  				page = NULL;
> >  			}
> > -		}
> > -		spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> > +		} else
> > +			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  	}
> >  	if (page) {
> >  		int one_user;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/