linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: reuse the unshared swapcache page in do_wp

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: <YeCUiO7RBqo/VTMh@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 21:07:20 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        wangzhigang17@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: reuse the unshared swapcache page in do_wp_page

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 09:44:04AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> IOW, the COW path would do
> 
>  trylock - copy if fails
>  try to remove from swap cache
>  if page_count() is now 1, we can reuse it
> 
> Note how the "try to remove from swap cache" is entirely independent
> of whether we then reuse it or not.
> 
> And yes, we can have optimistic other tests - like not even bothering
> to trylock if we can see that the page-count is so elevated that it
> makes no difference and trying to remove from swap cache would be just
> pointless extra work (both the removal itself, and then potentially
> later re-additions).
> 
> But those should be seen for what they are - not important for
> semantics, only a "don't bother, this page has so many users that we
> already know that removing the swapcache one doesn't make any
> difference at all".

I think what you mean is something like ...

+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -3290,15 +3290,13 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
        if (PageAnon(vmf->page)) {
                struct page *page = vmf->page;
 
-               /* PageKsm() doesn't necessarily raise the page refcount */
-               if (PageKsm(page) || page_count(page) != 1)
+               /* Lots of people are using this page, just copy */
+               if (page_count(page) > 5)
                        goto copy;
                if (!trylock_page(page))
                        goto copy;
-               if (PageKsm(page) || page_mapcount(page) != 1 || page_count(page) != 1) {
-                       unlock_page(page);
-                       goto copy;
-               }
+               if (!reuse_swap_page(page, NULL))
+                       goto unlock;
                /*
                 * Ok, we've got the only map reference, and the only
                 * page count reference, and the page is locked,
@@ -3311,6 +3309,8 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
                                        (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED))) {
                return wp_page_shared(vmf);
        }
+unlock:
+       unlock_page(page);
 copy:
        /*
         * Ok, we need to copy. Oh, well..

... with a suitably sensible reuse_swap_page().