linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, THP, swap: fix allocating cluster for swapfile by mistake

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: <20200819204405.GB2096425@optiplex-lnx>
Date:   Wed, 19 Aug 2020 16:44:05 -0400
From:   Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, THP, swap: fix allocating cluster for swapfile by
 mistake

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:05:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 03:56:13 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > SWP_FS doesn't mean the device is file-backed swap device,
> > which just means each writeback request should go through fs
> > by DIO. Or it'll just use extents added by .swap_activate(),
> > but it also works as file-backed swap device.
> 
> This is very hard to understand :(
> 

I'll work with Gao to rephrase that message. Sorry!


> > So in order to achieve the goal of the original patch,
> > SWP_BLKDEV should be used instead.
> > 
> > FS corruption can be observed with SSD device + XFS +
> > fragmented swapfile due to CONFIG_THP_SWAP=y.
> > 
> > Fixes: f0eea189e8e9 ("mm, THP, swap: Don't allocate huge cluster for file backed swap device")
> > Fixes: 38d8b4e6bdc8 ("mm, THP, swap: delay splitting THP during swap out")
> 
> Why do you think it has taken three years to discover this?
>

My bet here is that it's rare to go for a swapfile on non-rotational
devices, and even rarer to create the swapfile when the filesystem is
already fragmented. 
 
RHEL-8, v4.18-based, is starting to see more adpters among Red Hat's
customer base, thus the report now. We are also working on a secondary 
issue related to CONFIG_THP_SWAP, as well, where the deferred THP split
registered shriker goes for a NULL pointer dereference in case the
swap device is backed by a rotational drive.

-- Rafael