| 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: <l2s28c262361004011720pd7abc6d6id54d85c756997b95@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:20:27 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
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 Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 07:51:31PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> 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;
>> }
>>
>
> This I agree with.
>
>> And we have to close race between PageAnon(page) and rcu_read_lock.
>
> Not so sure on this. The page is locked at this point and that should
> prevent it from becoming !PageAnon
page lock can't prevent anon_vma free.
It's valid just only file-backed page, I think.
>> 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,
>>
>
> I am not sure this race exists because the page is locked but a key
> observation has been made - A page that is unmapped can be migrated if
> it's PageSwapCache but it may not have a valid anon_vma. Hence, in the
> !page_mapped case, the key is to not use anon_vma. How about the
> following patch?
I like this. Kame. How about your opinion?
please, look at a comment.
>
> ==== CUT HERE ====
>
> mm,migration: Allow the migration of PageSwapCache pages
>
> PageAnon pages that are unmapped may or may not have an anon_vma so are
> not currently migrated. However, a swap cache page can be migrated and
> fits this description. This patch identifies page swap caches and allows
> them to be migrated but ensures that no attempt to made to remap the pages
> would would potentially try to access an already freed anon_vma.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 35aad2a..5d0218b 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -484,7 +484,8 @@ static int fallback_migrate_page(struct address_space *mapping,
> * < 0 - error code
> * == 0 - success
> */
> -static int move_to_new_page(struct page *newpage, struct page *page)
> +static int move_to_new_page(struct page *newpage, struct page *page,
> + int safe_to_remap)
> {
> struct address_space *mapping;
> int rc;
> @@ -519,10 +520,12 @@ static int move_to_new_page(struct page *newpage, struct page *page)
> else
> rc = fallback_migrate_page(mapping, newpage, page);
>
> - if (!rc)
> - remove_migration_ptes(page, newpage);
> - else
> - newpage->mapping = NULL;
> + if (safe_to_remap) {
> + if (!rc)
> + remove_migration_ptes(page, newpage);
> + else
> + newpage->mapping = NULL;
> + }
>
> unlock_page(newpage);
>
> @@ -539,6 +542,7 @@ static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, unsigned long private,
> int rc = 0;
> int *result = NULL;
> struct page *newpage = get_new_page(page, private, &result);
> + int safe_to_remap = 1;
> int rcu_locked = 0;
> int charge = 0;
> struct mem_cgroup *mem = NULL;
> @@ -600,18 +604,26 @@ static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, unsigned long private,
> 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,
> - * it's possible its anon_vma disappeared between when
> - * the page was isolated and when we reached here while
> - * the RCU lock was not held
> - */
> - if (!page_mapped(page))
> - goto rcu_unlock;
> + /* Determine how to safely use anon_vma */
> + if (!page_mapped(page)) {
> + if (!PageSwapCache(page))
> + goto rcu_unlock;
>
> - anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
> - atomic_inc(&anon_vma->external_refcount);
> + /*
> + * We cannot be sure that the anon_vma of an unmapped
> + * page is safe to use. In this case, the page still
How about changing comment?
"In this case, swapcache page still "
Also, I want to change "safe_to_remap" to "remap_swapcache".
I think it's just problem related to swapcache page.
So I want to represent it explicitly although we can know it's swapcache
by code.
--
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