linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] add SWAP_HAS_CACHE flag to 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090527133629.142aa42f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2009 13:36:29 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/5] add SWAP_HAS_CACHE flag to swap_map

On Wed, 27 May 2009 13:02:46 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> > @@ -1067,21 +1113,21 @@ static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int typ
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/*
> > -		 * How could swap count reach 0x7fff when the maximum
> > -		 * pid is 0x7fff, and there's no way to repeat a swap
> > -		 * page within an mm (except in shmem, where it's the
> > -		 * shared object which takes the reference count)?
> > -		 * We believe SWAP_MAP_MAX cannot occur in Linux 2.4.
> > -		 *
> > +		 * How could swap count reach 0x7ffe ?
> > +		 * There's no way to repeat a swap page within an mm
> > +		 * (except in shmem, where it's the shared object which takes
> > +		 * the reference count)?
> > +		 * We believe SWAP_MAP_MAX cannot occur.(if occur, unsigned
> > +		 * short is too small....)
> >  		 * If that's wrong, then we should worry more about
> >  		 * exit_mmap() and do_munmap() cases described above:
> >  		 * we might be resetting SWAP_MAP_MAX too early here.
> >  		 * We know "Undead"s can happen, they're okay, so don't
> >  		 * report them; but do report if we reset SWAP_MAP_MAX.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (*swap_map == SWAP_MAP_MAX) {
> > +		if (swap_count(*swap_map) == SWAP_MAP_MAX) {
> >  			spin_lock(&swap_lock);
> > -			*swap_map = 1;
> > +			*swap_map = make_swap_count(0, 1);
> Can we assume the entry has SWAP_HAS_CACHE here ?
> Shouldn't we check PageSwapCache beforehand ?
> 

IIUC, in this try_to_unuse code, the page is added to swap cache and locked
before reaches here. But....ah,ok, unuse_mm() may release lock_page() before
reach here. Then...

if (PageSwapCache(page) && swap_count(*swap_map) == SWAP_MAP_MAX)

is right ? (maybe original code, set to "1" is also buggy.)

Thanks,
-Kame


> >  			spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> >  			reset_overflow = 1;
> >  		}
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Daisuke Nishimura.
> 

--
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/