linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V2 2/5] swap, __read_swap_cache_async(): enlarge get/put_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:   Tue, 23 May 2023 08:43:15 +0800
From:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 2/5] swap, __read_swap_cache_async(): enlarge
 get/put_swap_device protection range

David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:

> On 22.05.23 09:09, Huang Ying wrote:
>> This makes the function a little easier to be understood because we
>> don't need to consider swapoff.  And this makes it possible to remove
>> get/put_swap_device() calling in some functions called by
>> __read_swap_cache_async().
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/swap_state.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/mm/swap_state.c b/mm/swap_state.c
>> index b76a65ac28b3..a1028fe7214e 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap_state.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap_state.c
>> @@ -417,9 +417,13 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>   {
>>   	struct swap_info_struct *si;
>>   	struct folio *folio;
>> +	struct page *page;
>>   	void *shadow = NULL;
>>     	*new_page_allocated = false;
>> +	si = get_swap_device(entry);
>> +	if (!si)
>> +		return NULL;
>>     	for (;;) {
>>   		int err;
>> @@ -428,14 +432,12 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>   		 * called after swap_cache_get_folio() failed, re-calling
>>   		 * that would confuse statistics.
>>   		 */
>> -		si = get_swap_device(entry);
>> -		if (!si)
>> -			return NULL;
>>   		folio = filemap_get_folio(swap_address_space(entry),
>>   						swp_offset(entry));
>> -		put_swap_device(si);
>> -		if (!IS_ERR(folio))
>> -			return folio_file_page(folio, swp_offset(entry));
>> +		if (!IS_ERR(folio)) {
>> +			page = folio_file_page(folio, swp_offset(entry));
>> +			goto got_page;
>> +		}
>>     		/*
>>   		 * Just skip read ahead for unused swap slot.
>> @@ -445,8 +447,8 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>   		 * as SWAP_HAS_CACHE.  That's done in later part of code or
>>   		 * else swap_off will be aborted if we return NULL.
>>   		 */
>> -		if (!__swp_swapcount(entry) && swap_slot_cache_enabled)
>> -			return NULL;
>> +		if (!swap_swapcount(si, entry) && swap_slot_cache_enabled)
>> +			goto fail;
>>     		/*
>>   		 * Get a new page to read into from swap.  Allocate it now,
>> @@ -455,7 +457,7 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>   		 */
>>   		folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp_mask, 0, vma, addr, false);
>>   		if (!folio)
>> -			return NULL;
>> +                        goto fail;
>>     		/*
>>   		 * Swap entry may have been freed since our caller observed it.
>> @@ -466,7 +468,7 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>     		folio_put(folio);
>>   		if (err != -EEXIST)
>> -			return NULL;
>> +			goto fail;
>>     		/*
>>   		 * We might race against __delete_from_swap_cache(), and
>> @@ -500,12 +502,17 @@ struct page *__read_swap_cache_async(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>   	/* Caller will initiate read into locked folio */
>>   	folio_add_lru(folio);
>>   	*new_page_allocated = true;
>> -	return &folio->page;
>> +	page = &folio->page;
>> +got_page:
>> +	put_swap_device(si);
>> +	return page;
>>     fail_unlock:
>>   	put_swap_folio(folio, entry);
>>   	folio_unlock(folio);
>>   	folio_put(folio);
>> +fail:
>
> Maybe better "fail_put_swap".
>
> We now hold the swap device ref longer than we used to, prevent
> swapoff over the whole operation. I guess there is no way we can
> deadlock this way?

I think that we are safe.  In swapoff() syscall, we call
percpu_ref_kill() after all pages are swapped in (via try_to_unuse()).

> In general, looks good to me.

Thanks!

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying