[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201124121912.GZ4327@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 12:19:12 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
syzbot <syzbot+3622cea378100f45d59f@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:LINE!
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:07:24PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Twice now, when exercising ext4 looped on shmem huge pages, I have crashed
> on the PF_ONLY_HEAD check inside PageWaiters(): ext4_finish_bio() calling
> end_page_writeback() calling wake_up_page() on tail of a shmem huge page,
> no longer an ext4 page at all.
>
> The problem is that PageWriteback is not accompanied by a page reference
> (as the NOTE at the end of test_clear_page_writeback() acknowledges): as
> soon as TestClearPageWriteback has been done, that page could be removed
> from page cache, freed, and reused for something else by the time that
> wake_up_page() is reached.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200827122019.GC14765@casper.infradead.org/
> Matthew Wilcox suggested avoiding or weakening the PageWaiters() tail
> check; but I'm paranoid about even looking at an unreferenced struct page,
> lest its memory might itself have already been reused or hotremoved (and
> wake_up_page_bit() may modify that memory with its ClearPageWaiters()).
>
> Then on crashing a second time, realized there's a stronger reason against
> that approach. If my testing just occasionally crashes on that check,
> when the page is reused for part of a compound page, wouldn't it be much
> more common for the page to get reused as an order-0 page before reaching
> wake_up_page()? And on rare occasions, might that reused page already be
> marked PageWriteback by its new user, and already be waited upon? What
> would that look like?
>
> It would look like BUG_ON(PageWriteback) after wait_on_page_writeback()
> in write_cache_pages() (though I have never seen that crash myself).
I don't think this is it. write_cache_pages() holds a reference to the
page -- indeed, it holds the page lock! So this particular race cannot
cause the page to get recycled. I still have no good ideas what this
is :-(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists