linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: swap: update inuse

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 Jan 2024 20:15:36 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: swap: update inuse_pages after all cleanups are done

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:29 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> writes:
>
> >> > In swap_range_free, we want to make sure that the write to
> >> > si->inuse_pages in swap_range_free() happens *after* the cleanups
> >> > (specifically zswap_invalidate() in this case).
> >> > In swap_off, we want to make sure that the cleanups following
> >> > try_to_unuse() (e.g. zswap_swapoff) happen *after* reading
> >> > si->inuse_pages == 0 in try_to_unuse().
> >> >
> >> > So I think we want smp_wmb() in swap_range_free() and smp_mb() in
> >> > try_to_unuse(). Does the below look correct to you?
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > index 2fedb148b9404..a2fa2f65a8ddd 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> >> > @@ -750,6 +750,12 @@ static void swap_range_free(struct
> >> > swap_info_struct *si, unsigned long offset,
> >> >                 offset++;
> >> >         }
> >> >         clear_shadow_from_swap_cache(si->type, begin, end);
> >> > +
> >> > +       /*
> >> > +        * Make sure that try_to_unuse() observes si->inuse_pages reaching 0
> >> > +        * only after the above cleanups are done.
> >> > +        */
> >> > +       smp_wmb();
> >> >         atomic_long_add(nr_entries, &nr_swap_pages);
> >> >         WRITE_ONCE(si->inuse_pages, si->inuse_pages - nr_entries);
> >> >  }
> >> > @@ -2130,6 +2136,11 @@ static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type)
> >> >                 return -EINTR;
> >> >         }
> >> >
> >> > +       /*
> >> > +        * Make sure that further cleanups after try_to_unuse() returns happen
> >> > +        * after swap_range_free() reduces si->inuse_pages to 0.
> >> > +        */
> >> > +       smp_mb();
> >> >         return 0;
> >> >  }
> >>
> >> We need to take care of "si->inuse_pages" checking at the beginning of
> >> try_to_unuse() too.  Otherwise, it looks good to me.
> >
> > Hmm, why isn't one barrier at the end of the function enough? I think
> > all we need is that before we return from try_to_unuse(), all the
> > cleanups in swap_range_free() are taken care of, which the barrier at
> > the end should be doing. We just want instructions after
> > try_to_unuse() to not get re-ordered before si->inuse_pages is read as
> > 0, right?
>
> Because at the begin of try_to_unuse() as below, after reading, function
> returns directly without any memory barriers.
>
>   if (!READ_ONCE(si->inuse_pages))
>         return 0;

Right, I missed this one. Let me fix this up and send a v2.

Thanks!