linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -V7] mm, swap: fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

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: <20190212200652.bnkiqx6t2dg7ecp5@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:06:52 -0500
From:   Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -V7] mm, swap: fix race between swapoff and some swap
 operations

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 04:21:21AM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > > +	if (!si)
> > > +		goto bad_nofile;
> > > +
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > +	if (!(si->flags & SWP_VALID))
> > > +		goto unlock_out;
> > 
> > After Hugh alluded to barriers, it seems the read of SWP_VALID could be
> > reordered with the write in preempt_disable at runtime.  Without smp_mb()
> > between the two, couldn't this happen, however unlikely a race it is?
> > 
> > CPU0                                CPU1
> > 
> > __swap_duplicate()
> >     get_swap_device()
> >         // sees SWP_VALID set
> >                                    swapoff
> >                                        p->flags &= ~SWP_VALID;
> >                                        spin_unlock(&p->lock); // pair w/ smp_mb
> >                                        ...
> >                                        stop_machine(...)
> >                                        p->swap_map = NULL;
> >         preempt_disable()
> >     read NULL p->swap_map
> 
> 
> I don't think that that smp_mb() is necessary.  I elaborate:
> 
> An important piece of information, I think, that is missing in the
> diagram above is the stopper thread which executes the work queued
> by stop_machine().  We have two cases to consider, that is,
> 
>   1) the stopper is "executed before" the preempt-disable section
> 
> 	CPU0
> 
> 	cpu_stopper_thread()
> 	...
> 	preempt_disable()
> 	...
> 	preempt_enable()
> 
>   2) the stopper is "executed after" the preempt-disable section
> 
> 	CPU0
> 
> 	preempt_disable()
> 	...
> 	preempt_enable()
> 	...
> 	cpu_stopper_thread()
> 
> Notice that the reads from p->flags and p->swap_map in CPU0 cannot
> cross cpu_stopper_thread().  The claim is that CPU0 sees SWP_VALID
> unset in (1) and that it sees a non-NULL p->swap_map in (2).
> 
> I consider the two cases separately:
> 
>   1) CPU1 unsets SPW_VALID, it locks the stopper's lock, and it
>      queues the stopper work; CPU0 locks the stopper's lock, it
>      dequeues this work, and it reads from p->flags.
> 
>      Diagrammatically, we have the following MP-like pattern:
> 
> 	CPU0				CPU1
> 
> 	lock(stopper->lock)		p->flags &= ~SPW_VALID
> 	get @work			lock(stopper->lock)
> 	unlock(stopper->lock)		add @work
> 	reads p->flags 			unlock(stopper->lock)
> 
>      where CPU0 must see SPW_VALID unset (if CPU0 sees the work
>      added by CPU1).
> 
>   2) CPU0 reads from p->swap_map, it locks the completion lock,
>      and it signals completion; CPU1 locks the completion lock,
>      it checks for completion, and it writes to p->swap_map.
> 
>      (If CPU0 doesn't signal the completion, or CPU1 doesn't see
>      the completion, then CPU1 will have to iterate the read and
>      to postpone the control-dependent write to p->swap_map.)
> 
>      Diagrammatically, we have the following LB-like pattern:
> 
> 	CPU0				CPU1
> 
> 	reads p->swap_map		lock(completion)
> 	lock(completion)		read completion->done
> 	completion->done++		unlock(completion)
> 	unlock(completion)		p->swap_map = NULL
> 
>      where CPU0 must see a non-NULL p->swap_map if CPU1 sees the
>      completion from CPU0.
> 
> Does this make sense?

Yes, thanks for this, Andrea!  Good that smp_mb isn't needed.