linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix race between umount and writepage

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: <4DAFD0B1.9090603@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:37:37 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...allels.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix race between umount and writepage

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:34:52 +0400
> Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@...nvz.org>  wrote:
>
>> shmem_writepage() call igrab() on the inode for the page which is came from
>> reclaimer to add it later into shmem_swaplist for swap-unuse operation.
>>
>> This igrab() can race with super-block deactivating process:
>>
>> shrink_inactive_list()		deactivate_super()
>> pageout()			tmpfs_fs_type->kill_sb()
>> shmem_writepage()		kill_litter_super()
>> 				generic_shutdown_super()
>> 				 evict_inodes()
>>   igrab()
>> 				  atomic_read(&inode->i_count)
>> 				   skip-inode
>>   iput()
>> 				 if (!list_empty(&sb->s_inodes))
>> 					printk("VFS: Busy inodes after...
>
> Generally, ->writepage implementations shouldn't play with the inode,
> for the reasons you've discovered.  A more common race is
> writepage-versus-reclaim, where writepage is playing with the inode
> when a concurrent reclaim frees the inode (and hence the
> address_space).
>
> It is safe to play with the inode while the passed-in page is locked
> because nobody will free an inode which has an attached locked page.
> But once the page is unlocked, nothing pins the inode.  Typically,
> tmpfs goes and breakes this rule.
>
>
> Question is: why is shmem_writepage() doing the igrab/iput?
>
> Read 1b1b32f2c6f6bb3253 and weep.
>
> That changelog is a little incorrect:
>
> : Ah, I'd never suspected it, but shmem_writepage's swaplist manipulation
> : is unsafe: though still hold page lock, which would hold off inode
> : deletion if the page were i pagecache, it doesn't hold off once it's in
> : swapcache (free_swap_and_cache doesn't wait on locked pages).  Hmm: we
> : could put the the inode on swaplist earlier, but then shmem_unuse_inode
> : could never prune unswapped inodes.
>
> We don't actually hold the page lock when altering the swaplist:
> swap_writepage() unlocks the page.  Doesn't seem to matter.
>
>
> I think we should get the igrab/iput out of there and come up with a
> different way of pinning the inode in ->writepage().
>
> Can we do it in this order?
>
> 	mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
> 	list_move_tail(&info->swaplist,&shmem_swaplist);
> 	delete_from_page_cache(page);
> 	shmem_swp_set(info, entry, swap.val);
> 	shmem_swp_unmap(entry);
> 	mutex_unlock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
> 	swap_writepage(page, wbc);									
>

Yes, we can, but of course without locking shmem_swaplist_mutex if inode already in shmem_swaplist.

I saw that igrab redundancy, but I was confused with lock-nesting and
shmem_swaplist spinlock to mutex conversion.
Seems to shmem_swaplist_mutex is already nested inside PageLock, so all ok.

We can simply revert last hunk from that commit, patch follows.
--
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/