| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <w2i28c262361004010351r605c897dzd2bdccac149dcc6b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:51:31 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] mm,migration: Allow the migration of PageSwapCache
pages
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:44:29 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 11:43:18 +0900
>> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:26 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki /*
>> >> >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> index af35b75..d5ea1f2 100644
>> >> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> >> >> @@ -1394,9 +1394,11 @@ int rmap_walk(struct page *page, int (*rmap_one)(struct page *,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> if (unlikely(PageKsm(page)))
>> >> >> return rmap_walk_ksm(page, rmap_one, arg);
>> >> >> - else if (PageAnon(page))
>> >> >> + else if (PageAnon(page)) {
>> >> >> + if (PageSwapCache(page))
>> >> >> + return SWAP_AGAIN;
>> >> >> return rmap_walk_anon(page, rmap_one, arg);
>> >> >
>> >> > SwapCache has a condition as (PageSwapCache(page) && page_mapped(page) == true.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> In case of tmpfs, page has swapcache but not mapped.
>> >>
>> >> > Please see do_swap_page(), PageSwapCache bit is cleared only when
>> >> >
>> >> > do_swap_page()...
>> >> > swap_free(entry);
>> >> > if (vm_swap_full() || (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) || PageMlocked(page))
>> >> > try_to_free_swap(page);
>> >> >
>> >> > Then, PageSwapCache is cleared only when swap is freeable even if mapped.
>> >> >
>> >> > rmap_walk_anon() should be called and the check is not necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Frankly speaking, I don't understand what is Mel's problem, why he added
>> >> Swapcache check in rmap_walk, and why do you said we don't need it.
>> >>
>> >> Could you explain more detail if you don't mind?
>> >>
>> > I may miss something.
>> >
>> > unmap_and_move()
>> > 1. try_to_unmap(TTU_MIGRATION)
>> > 2. move_to_newpage
>> > 3. remove_migration_ptes
>> > -> rmap_walk()
>> >
>> > Then, to map a page back we unmapped we call rmap_walk().
>> >
>> > Assume a SwapCache which is mapped, then, PageAnon(page) == true.
>> >
>> > At 1. try_to_unmap() will rewrite pte with swp_entry of SwapCache.
>> > mapcount goes to 0.
>> > At 2. SwapCache is copied to a new page.
>> > At 3. The new page is mapped back to the place. Now, newpage's mapcount is 0.
>> > Before patch, the new page is mapped back to all ptes.
>> > After patch, the new page is not mapped back because its mapcount is 0.
>> >
>> > I don't think shared SwapCache of anon is not an usual behavior, so, the logic
>> > before patch is more attractive.
>> >
>> > If SwapCache is not mapped before "1", we skip "1" and rmap_walk will do nothing
>> > because page->mapping is NULL.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks. I agree. We don't need the check.
>> Then, my question is why Mel added the check in rmap_walk.
>> He mentioned some BUG trigger and fixed things after this patch.
>> What's it?
>> Is it really related to this logic?
>> I don't think so or we are missing something.
>>
> Hmm. Consiering again.
>
> Now.
> if (PageAnon(page)) {
> rcu_locked = 1;
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (!page_mapped(page)) {
> if (!PageSwapCache(page))
> goto rcu_unlock;
> } else {
> anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
> atomic_inc(&anon_vma->external_refcount);
> }
>
>
> Maybe this is a fix.
>
> ==
> skip_remap = 0;
> if (PageAnon(page)) {
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (!page_mapped(page)) {
> if (!PageSwapCache(page))
> goto rcu_unlock;
> /*
> * We can't convice this anon_vma is valid or not because
> * !page_mapped(page). Then, we do migration(radix-tree replacement)
> * but don't remap it which touches anon_vma in page->mapping.
> */
> skip_remap = 1;
> goto skip_unmap;
> } else {
> anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
> atomic_inc(&anon_vma->external_refcount);
> }
> }
> .....copy page, radix-tree replacement,....
>
It's not enough.
we uses remove_migration_ptes in move_to_new_page, too.
We have to prevent it.
We can check PageSwapCache(page) in move_to_new_page and then
skip remove_migration_ptes.
ex)
static int move_to_new_page(....)
{
int swapcache = PageSwapCache(page);
...
if (!swapcache)
if(!rc)
remove_migration_ptes
else
newpage->mapping = NULL;
}
And we have to close race between PageAnon(page) and rcu_read_lock.
If we don't do it, anon_vma could be free in the middle of operation.
I means
* of migration. File cache pages are no problem because of page_lock()
* File Caches may use write_page() or lock_page() in migration, then,
* just care Anon page here.
*/
if (PageAnon(page)) {
!!! RACE !!!!
rcu_read_lock();
rcu_locked = 1;
+
+ /*
+ * If the page has no mappings any more, just bail. An
+ * unmapped anon page is likely to be freed soon but worse,
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists