linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: initialize page->private when using for our internal use

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:46:37 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: initialize page->private when using for
 our internal use

On 2021/7/12 14:53, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sat 10-07-21 16:11:38, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2021/7/7 17:57, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> I think it would work but it would be preferable to find out why the
>>> tail page has an order set in the first place. I've looked over
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> mm/page_alloc.c and mm/compaction.c a few times and did not spot where
>>> set_private_page(page, 0) is missed when it should be covered by
>>> clear_page_guard or del_page_from_free_list :(
>>
>> I didn't enable CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, so we will expect page private
>> should be cleared by del_page_from_free_list(), but I guess it only clears
>> the buddy's private field rather than original page's, so I added below
>> diff and check the dmesg, it looks stall private value in original page
>> will be left commonly... Let me know if I missed something?
> 
> Page private should be cleared when the page is freed to the allocator.
> Have a look at PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE.

Quoted from Jaegeuk's comments in [1]

"Hmm, I can see it in 4.14 and 5.10 kernel.

The trace is on:

  30875 [ 1065.118750] c3     87  f2fs_migrate_page+0x354/0x45c
  30876 [ 1065.123872] c3     87  move_to_new_page+0x70/0x30c
  30877 [ 1065.128813] c3     87  migrate_pages+0x3a0/0x964
  30878 [ 1065.133583] c3     87  compact_zone+0x608/0xb04
  30879 [ 1065.138257] c3     87  kcompactd+0x378/0x4ec
  30880 [ 1065.142664] c3     87  kthread+0x11c/0x12c
  30881 [ 1065.146897] c3     87  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

  It seems compaction_alloc() gets a free page which doesn't reset the fields?"

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/YOvm2faBUjKmZI7Q@dhcp22.suse.cz/T/#m98a4a5e777f5b0e7366b367463efafd2133dd681

So problem here we met is: in f2fs_migrate_page(), newpage may has stall .private
value rather than PG_private flag, which may cause f2fs will treat the page with
wrong private status.

> 
>> ---
>>   mm/page_alloc.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index a06bcfe6f786..1e7031ff548e 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -1029,6 +1029,7 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>>   	unsigned long combined_pfn;
>>   	unsigned int max_order;
>>   	struct page *buddy;
>> +	struct page *orig_page = page;
>>   	bool to_tail;
>>
>>   	max_order = min_t(unsigned int, MAX_ORDER - 1, pageblock_order);
>> @@ -1097,6 +1098,10 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>>
>>   done_merging:
>>   	set_buddy_order(page, order);
>> +	if (orig_page != page) {
>> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(orig_page->private))
>> +			pr_info("2order:%x, origpage.private:%x", order, orig_page->private);
>> +	}
> 
> Why is this expected? Buddy allocator uses page private to store order.
> Whether we are merging to the freed page or coalesce it to a different

The order was only set in head page, right? Since it looks __free_one_page() tries
to clear page.private for every buddy with del_page_from_free_list().

If that is true, after done_merging label in __free_one_page, if original page is
a tail page, we may missed to clear its page.private field?

Thanks,

> page is not all that important.
>