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:   Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:04:49 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Minchan Kim <>,,, Hugh Dickins <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        Tim Chen <>,
        Shaohua Li <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,
        J�r�me Glisse <>,
        Michal Hocko <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        David Rientjes <>,
        Rik van Riel <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Dave Jiang <>,
        Aaron Lu <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:30:03PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Andrew Morton <> writes:
> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:41:38 +0800 "Huang\, Ying" <> wrote:
> >
> >> > Why do we need srcu here? Is it enough with rcu like below?
> >> >
> >> > It might have a bug/room to be optimized about performance/naming.
> >> > I just wanted to show my intention.
> >> 
> >> Yes.  rcu should work too.  But if we use rcu, it may need to be called
> >> several times to make sure the swap device under us doesn't go away, for
> >> example, when checking si->max in __swp_swapcount() and
> >> add_swap_count_continuation().  And I found we need rcu to protect swap
> >> cache radix tree array too.  So I think it may be better to use one
> >> calling to srcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of multiple callings to
> >> rcu_read_lock/unlock().
> >
> > Or use stop_machine() ;)  It's very crude but it sure is simple.  Does
> > anyone have a swapoff-intensive workload?
> Sorry, I don't know how to solve the problem with stop_machine().
> The problem we try to resolved is that, we have a swap entry, but that
> swap entry can become invalid because of swappoff between we check it
> and we use it.  So we need to prevent swapoff to be run between checking
> and using.
> I don't know how to use stop_machine() in swapoff to wait for all users
> of swap entry to finish.  Anyone can help me on this?

You can think of stop_machine() as being sort of like a reader-writer
lock.  The readers can be any section of code with preemption disabled,
and the writer is the function passed to stop_machine().

Users running real-time applications on Linux don't tend to like
stop_machine() much, but perhaps it is nevertheless the right tool
for this particular job.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists