linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/3] mm/fs: fix pessimization in hole-punching pagecache

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] mm/fs: fix pessimization in hole-punching pagecache

I wanted to revert my v3.1 commit d0823576bf4b ("mm: pincer in
truncate_inode_pages_range"), to keep truncate_inode_pages_range()
in synch with shmem_undo_range(); but have stepped back - a change
to hole-punching in truncate_inode_pages_range() is a change to
hole-punching in every filesystem (except tmpfs) that supports it.

If there's a logical proof why no filesystem can depend for its own
correctness on the pincer guarantee in truncate_inode_pages_range() -
an instant when the entire hole is removed from pagecache - then let's
revisit later.  But the evidence is that only tmpfs suffered from the
livelock, and we have no intention of extending hole-punch to ramfs.
So for now just add a few comments (to match or differ from those in
shmem_undo_range()), and fix one silliness noticed in d0823576bf4b...

Its "index == start" addition to the hole-punch termination test was
incomplete: it opened a way for the end condition to be missed, and the
loop go on looking through the radix_tree, all the way to end of file.
Fix that pessimization by resetting index when detected in inner loop.

Note that it's actually hard to hit this case, without the obsessive
concurrent faulting that trinity does: normally all pages are removed
in the initial trylock_page() pass, and this loop finds nothing to do.
I had to "#if 0" out the initial pass to reproduce bug and test fix.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
---

 mm/truncate.c |   11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- 3.16-rc3/mm/truncate.c	2014-06-08 11:19:54.000000000 -0700
+++ linux/mm/truncate.c	2014-07-02 03:36:05.972553533 -0700
@@ -355,14 +355,16 @@ void truncate_inode_pages_range(struct a
 	for ( ; ; ) {
 		cond_resched();
 		if (!pagevec_lookup_entries(&pvec, mapping, index,
-			min(end - index, (pgoff_t)PAGEVEC_SIZE),
-			indices)) {
+			min(end - index, (pgoff_t)PAGEVEC_SIZE), indices)) {
+			/* If all gone from start onwards, we're done */
 			if (index == start)
 				break;
+			/* Otherwise restart to make sure all gone */
 			index = start;
 			continue;
 		}
 		if (index == start && indices[0] >= end) {
+			/* All gone out of hole to be punched, we're done */
 			pagevec_remove_exceptionals(&pvec);
 			pagevec_release(&pvec);
 			break;
@@ -373,8 +375,11 @@ void truncate_inode_pages_range(struct a

 			/* We rely upon deletion not changing page->index */
 			index = indices[i];
-			if (index >= end)
+			if (index >= end) {
+				/* Restart punch to make sure all gone */
+				index = start - 1;
 				break;
+			}

 			if (radix_tree_exceptional_entry(page)) {
 				clear_exceptional_entry(mapping, index, page);
--
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/