linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix swap offset when replacing shmem page

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:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:07:27 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fix swap offset when replacing shmem page

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:11:27PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > 
> > > We used to have a single swap address space with swp_entry_t.val
> > > as its radix tree index. This is not the case anymore. Now Each
> > > swp_type() has its own address space and should use swp_offset()
> > > as radix tree index.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> > 
> > This fix is a great find, thank you! But completely mis-described!
> 
> Yes, now I remember making swap offset as key was done long after per
> swap device radix tree.
> 
> > And could you do a smaller patch, keeping swap_index, that can go to
> > stable without getting into trouble with the recent xarrifications?
> > 
> > Fixes: bde05d1ccd51 ("shmem: replace page if mapping excludes its zone")
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 3.5+
> > 
> > Seems shmem_replace_page() has been wrong since the day I wrote it:
> > good enough to work on swap "type" 0, which is all most people ever use
> > (especially those few who need shmem_replace_page() at all), but broken
> > once there are any non-0 swp_type bits set in the higher order bits.
> 
> But you did get it right when you wrote the function, which was before
> the per swap device radix tree. so
> Fixes: f6ab1f7f6b2d ("mm, swap: use offset of swap entry as key of swap cache")
> looks good?

Oh, you're right, thank you. Yes, the fix is to that one, in 4.9 onwards.

I don't much like my original use of the name "swap_index", when it was
not the index in a swapfile (though it was the index in the radix tree);
but it will become a correct name with your patch.

Though Matthew Wilcox seems to want us to avoid saying "radix tree"...

Hugh