linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] SHM_UNLOCK: fix Unevictable pages stranded after 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: <4F0B73AC.7000504@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:09:32 -0500
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] SHM_UNLOCK: fix Unevictable pages stranded after
 swap

(1/9/12 5:25 PM), Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> 2012/1/6 Hugh Dickins<hughd@...gle.com>:
>
> [ check_move_unevictable_page(s) ]
>
>>>
>>> Leave out the "rotate unevictable list" block: that's a leftover
>>> from when this was used for /proc/sys/vm/scan_unevictable_pages,
>>> whose flawed handling involved looking at pages at tail of LRU.
>>>
>>> Was there significance to the sequence first ClearPageUnevictable,
>>> then test page_evictable, then SetPageUnevictable here?  I think
>>> not, we're under LRU lock, and have no barriers between those.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, this is not exactly correct. Because of,
>
> Thank you for giving it serious thought:
> such races are hard work to think about.
>
>> PG_mlocked operation is not protected by LRU lock. So, I think we
>
> Right.  But I don't see that I've made a significant change there.
>
> I may be being lazy, and rushing back to answer you, without giving
> constructive thought to what the precise race is that you see, and
> how we might fix it.  If the case you have in mind is easy for you
> to describe in detail, please do so; but don't hesitate to tell me
> to my own work for myself!

Bah! I was moron. I now think your code is right.

spin_lock(lru_lock)
if (page_evictable(page))
	blah blah blah
spin_unlock(lru_lock)

is always safe. Counter part should have following code and
waiting spin_lock(lru_lock) in isolate_lru_page().

                 if (!isolate_lru_page(page))
                         putback_lru_page(page);

then, even if check_move_unevictable_pages() observed wrong page status,
putback_lru_page() should put back the page into right lru.

I'm very sorry for annoying you.

	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>



Probably, page_evictable() might be needed some additional comments. But
I have no idea what comment clearly explain this complex rule.....
  
--
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/