[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180213154123.9f4ef9e406ea8365ca46d9c5@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:41:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v5 RESEND] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and
some swap operations
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:42:20 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>
> When the swapin is performed, after getting the swap entry information
> from the page table, system will swap in the swap entry, without any
> lock held to prevent the swap device from being swapoff. This may
> cause the race like below,
Sigh. In terms of putting all the work into the swapoff path and
avoiding overheads in the hot paths, I guess this is about as good as
it will get.
It's a very low-priority fix so I'd prefer to keep the patch in -mm
until Hugh has had an opportunity to think about it.
> ...
>
> +/*
> + * Check whether swap entry is valid in the swap device. If so,
> + * return pointer to swap_info_struct, and keep the swap entry valid
> + * via preventing the swap device from being swapoff, until
> + * put_swap_device() is called. Otherwise return NULL.
> + */
> +struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device(swp_entry_t entry)
> +{
> + struct swap_info_struct *si;
> + unsigned long type, offset;
> +
> + if (!entry.val)
> + goto out;
> + type = swp_type(entry);
> + if (type >= nr_swapfiles)
> + goto bad_nofile;
> + si = swap_info[type];
> +
> + preempt_disable();
This preempt_disable() is later than I'd expect. If a well-timed race
occurs, `si' could now be pointing at a defunct entry. If that
well-timed race include a swapoff AND a swapon, `si' could be pointing
at the info for a new device?
> + if (!(si->flags & SWP_VALID))
> + goto unlock_out;
> + offset = swp_offset(entry);
> + if (offset >= si->max)
> + goto unlock_out;
> +
> + return si;
> +bad_nofile:
> + pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_file, entry.val);
> +out:
> + return NULL;
> +unlock_out:
> + preempt_enable();
> + return NULL;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists