linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: swapfile: avoid split_swap

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:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:31:57 -0400
From:   Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: swapfile: avoid split_swap_cluster() NULL pointer
 dereference

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:21:58AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> writes:
> >> Or, can you help to run the test with a debug kernel based on upstream
> >> kernel.  I can provide some debug patch.
> >> 
> >
> > Sure, I can set your patches to run with the test cases we have that tend to 
> > reproduce the issue with some degree of success.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I found a race condition.  During THP splitting, "head" may be unlocked
> before calling split_swap_cluster(), because head != page during
> deferred splitting.  So we should call split_swap_cluster() before
> unlocking.  The debug patch to do that is as below.  Can you help to
> test it?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> 
> ------------------------8<----------------------------
> From 24ce0736a9f587d2dba12f12491c88d3e296a491 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:10:56 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] dbg: Call split_swap_clsuter() before unlock page during
>  split THP
> 
> ---
>  mm/huge_memory.c | 13 +++++++------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index faadc449cca5..8d79e5e6b46e 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -2444,6 +2444,12 @@ static void __split_huge_page(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>  
>  	remap_page(head);
>  
> +	if (PageSwapCache(head)) {
> +		swp_entry_t entry = { .val = page_private(head) };
> +
> +		split_swap_cluster(entry);
> +	}
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i < HPAGE_PMD_NR; i++) {
>  		struct page *subpage = head + i;
>  		if (subpage == page)
> @@ -2678,12 +2684,7 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
>  		}
>  
>  		__split_huge_page(page, list, end, flags);
> -		if (PageSwapCache(head)) {
> -			swp_entry_t entry = { .val = page_private(head) };
> -
> -			ret = split_swap_cluster(entry);
> -		} else
> -			ret = 0;
> +		ret = 0;
>  	} else {
>  		if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VM) && mapcount) {
>  			pr_alert("total_mapcount: %u, page_count(): %u\n",
> -- 
> 2.28.0
> 

I left it running for several days, on several systems that had seen the
crash hitting before, and no crashes were observed for either the upstream
kernel nor the distro build 4.18-based kernel.

I guess we can comfortably go with your patch. Thanks!