| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e72bb6a2-6aff-0d6c-3e56-562b4fb53285@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:55:52 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <hannes@...xchg.org>,
<mhocko@...e.com>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
<alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>, <willy@...radead.org>,
<minchan@...nel.org>, <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
<hughd@...gle.com>, <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] swap: fix do_swap_page() race with swapoff
On 2021/4/13 9:27, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com> writes:
>
>> When I was investigating the swap code, I found the below possible race
>> window:
>>
>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>> ----- -----
>> do_swap_page
>> synchronous swap_readpage
>> alloc_page_vma
>> swapoff
>> release swap_file, bdev, or ...
>> swap_readpage
>> check sis->flags is ok
>> access swap_file, bdev...[oops!]
>> si->flags = 0
>>
>> Using current get/put_swap_device() to guard against concurrent swapoff for
>> swap_readpage() looks terrible because swap_readpage() may take really long
>> time. And this race may not be really pernicious because swapoff is usually
>> done when system shutdown only. To reduce the performance overhead on the
>> hot-path as much as possible, it appears we can use the percpu_ref to close
>> this race window(as suggested by Huang, Ying).
>>
>> Fixes: 235b62176712 ("mm/swap: add cluster lock")
>
> This isn't the commit that introduces the race. You can use `git blame`
> find out the correct commit. For this it's commit 0bcac06f27d7 "mm,
> swap: skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device".
>
Sorry about it! What I refer to is commit eb085574a752 ("mm, swap: fix race between
swapoff and some swap operations"). And I think this commit does not fix the race
condition completely, so I reuse the Fixes tag inside it.
> And I suggest to merge 1/5 and 2/5 to make it easy to get the full
> picture.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/swap.h | 2 +-
>> mm/memory.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> mm/swapfile.c | 28 +++++++++++-----------------
>> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> index 849ba5265c11..9066addb57fd 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ sector_t swap_page_sector(struct page *page);
>>
>> static inline void put_swap_device(struct swap_info_struct *si)
>> {
>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>> + percpu_ref_put(&si->users);
>> }
>>
>> #else /* CONFIG_SWAP */
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index cc71a445c76c..8543c47b955c 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -3311,6 +3311,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> {
>> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>> struct page *page = NULL, *swapcache;
>> + struct swap_info_struct *si = NULL;
>> swp_entry_t entry;
>> pte_t pte;
>> int locked;
>> @@ -3339,6 +3340,11 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> }
>>
>>
>
> I suggest to add comments here as follows (words copy from Matthew Wilcox)
>
> /* Prevent swapoff from happening to us */
Ok.
>
>> + si = get_swap_device(entry);
>> + /* In case we raced with swapoff. */
>> + if (unlikely(!si))
>> + goto out;
>> +
>
> Because we wrap the whole do_swap_page() with get/put_swap_device()
> now. We can remove several get/put_swap_device() for function called by
> do_swap_page(). That can be another optimization patch.
I tried to remove several get/put_swap_device() for function called
by do_swap_page() only before I send this series. But it seems they have
other callers without proper get/put_swap_device().
>
>> delayacct_set_flag(DELAYACCT_PF_SWAPIN);
>> page = lookup_swap_cache(entry, vma, vmf->address);
>> swapcache = page;
>> @@ -3514,6 +3520,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> unlock:
>> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
>> out:
>> + if (si)
>> + put_swap_device(si);
>> return ret;
>> out_nomap:
>> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
>> @@ -3525,6 +3533,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> unlock_page(swapcache);
>> put_page(swapcache);
>> }
>> + if (si)
>> + put_swap_device(si);
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> index 724173cd7d0c..01032c72ceae 100644
>> --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> @@ -1280,18 +1280,12 @@ static unsigned char __swap_entry_free_locked(struct swap_info_struct *p,
>> * via preventing the swap device from being swapoff, until
>> * put_swap_device() is called. Otherwise return NULL.
>> *
>> - * The entirety of the RCU read critical section must come before the
>> - * return from or after the call to synchronize_rcu() in
>> - * enable_swap_info() or swapoff(). So if "si->flags & SWP_VALID" is
>> - * true, the si->map, si->cluster_info, etc. must be valid in the
>> - * critical section.
>> - *
>> * Notice that swapoff or swapoff+swapon can still happen before the
>> - * rcu_read_lock() in get_swap_device() or after the rcu_read_unlock()
>> - * in put_swap_device() if there isn't any other way to prevent
>> - * swapoff, such as page lock, page table lock, etc. The caller must
>> - * be prepared for that. For example, the following situation is
>> - * possible.
>> + * percpu_ref_tryget_live() in get_swap_device() or after the
>> + * percpu_ref_put() in put_swap_device() if there isn't any other way
>> + * to prevent swapoff, such as page lock, page table lock, etc. The
>> + * caller must be prepared for that. For example, the following
>> + * situation is possible.
>> *
>> * CPU1 CPU2
>> * do_swap_page()
>> @@ -1319,21 +1313,21 @@ struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device(swp_entry_t entry)
>> si = swp_swap_info(entry);
>> if (!si)
>> goto bad_nofile;
>> -
>> - rcu_read_lock();
>> if (data_race(!(si->flags & SWP_VALID)))
>
> We can delete SWP_VALID, that is used together with RCU solution.
Will do.
>
>> - goto unlock_out;
>> + goto out;
>> + if (!percpu_ref_tryget_live(&si->users))
>> + goto out;
>> offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> if (offset >= si->max)
>> - goto unlock_out;
>> + goto put_out;
>>
>> return si;
>> bad_nofile:
>> pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_file, entry.val);
>> out:
>> return NULL;
>> -unlock_out:
>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>> +put_out:
>> + percpu_ref_put(&si->users);
>> return NULL;
>> }
>
Many thanks.
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists