linux-kernel - Re: Zram writeback feature unstable with heavy swap utilization

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: <20180725023532.GB16271@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:35:32 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Tino Lehnig <tino.lehnig@...tabo.de>, ngupta@...are.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Zram writeback feature unstable with heavy swap utilization -
 BUG: Bad page state in process...

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Tino,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> > > > somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug with 4.17.9
> > > > and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
> > > > 
> > > > The bug does not appear on 4.14.57. I can test more versions if it helps.
> > > 
> > > Could you try 4.15?
> > > 
> > > I think it's a regression of struct page field reordring and it started from
> > > v4.16. 
> > > 
> > > page->units for zsmalloc is used as offset of first object on the zspage,
> > > However, below patch unified it with page->_refcount.
> > 
> > No it didn't.  It's in a union with _mapcount, which is where it was before
> > my patches.
> > 
> > It's entiely possible that my patches caused this, but the explanation
> > you're offering is wrong.
> 
> Before your patch, _mapcount and _refcount is separated space so we can use
> _mapcount for page->units for non-mapped pages because units is unified with
> _mapcount. However, with your patch, now units is unified with _refcount.

No.  That's completely untrue.

        union {         /* This union is 4 bytes in size. */
                atomic_t _mapcount;
                unsigned int page_type;
                unsigned int active;            /* SLAB */
                int units;                      /* SLOB */
        };

        atomic_t _refcount;

There is NOTHING in a union with _refcount.