Message-ID: <ZbhBNkayw1hNlkpL@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:22:14 +0000
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris Li <chriscli@...gle.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/zswap: fix race between lru writeback and swapoff

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 01:28:50PM +0000, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> LRU writeback has race problem with swapoff, as spotted by Yosry [1]:
> 
> CPU1			CPU2
> shrink_memcg_cb		swap_off
>   list_lru_isolate	  zswap_invalidate
> 			  zswap_swapoff
> 			    kfree(tree)
>   // UAF
>   spin_lock(&tree->lock)
> 
> The problem is that the entry in lru list can't protect the tree from
> being swapoff and freed, and the entry also can be invalidated and freed
> concurrently after we unlock the lru lock.
> 
> We can fix it by moving the swap cache allocation ahead before
> referencing the tree, then check invalidate race with tree lock,
> only after that we can safely deref the entry. Note we couldn't
> deref entry or tree anymore after we unlock the folio, since we
> depend on this to hold on swapoff.
> 
> So this patch moves all tree and entry usage to zswap_writeback_entry(),
> we only use the copied swpentry on the stack to allocate swap cache
> and if returned with folio locked we can reference the tree safely.
> Then we can check invalidate race with tree lock, the following things
> is much the same like zswap_load().
> 
> Since we can't deref the entry after zswap_writeback_entry(), we
> can't use zswap_lru_putback() anymore, instead we rotate the entry
> in the beginning. And it will be unlinked and freed when invalidated
> if writeback success.

You are also removing one redundant lookup from the zswap writeback path
to check for the invalidation race, and simplifying the code. Give
yourself full credit :)

> 
> Another change is we don't update the memcg nr_zswap_protected in
> the -ENOMEM and -EEXIST cases anymore. -EEXIST case means we raced
> with swapin or concurrent shrinker action, since swapin already
> have memcg nr_zswap_protected updated, don't need double counts here.
> For concurrent shrinker, the folio will be writeback and freed anyway.
> -ENOMEM case is extremely rare and doesn't happen spuriously either,
> so don't bother distinguishing this case.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJD7tkasHsRnT_75-TXsEe58V9_OW6m3g6CF7Kmsvz8CKRG_EA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Acked-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
> ---
>  mm/zswap.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 81cb3790e0dd..f5cb5a46e4d7 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static inline struct zswap_tree *swap_zswap_tree(swp_entry_t swp)
>  		 zpool_get_type((p)->zpools[0]))
>  
>  static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
> -				 struct zswap_tree *tree);
> +				 swp_entry_t swpentry);
>  static int zswap_pool_get(struct zswap_pool *pool);
>  static void zswap_pool_put(struct zswap_pool *pool);
>  
> @@ -445,27 +445,6 @@ static void zswap_lru_del(struct list_lru *list_lru, struct zswap_entry *entry)
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
> -static void zswap_lru_putback(struct list_lru *list_lru,
> -		struct zswap_entry *entry)
> -{
> -	int nid = entry_to_nid(entry);
> -	spinlock_t *lock = &list_lru->node[nid].lock;
> -	struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> -	struct lruvec *lruvec;
> -
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	memcg = mem_cgroup_from_entry(entry);
> -	spin_lock(lock);
> -	/* we cannot use list_lru_add here, because it increments node's lru count */
> -	list_lru_putback(list_lru, &entry->lru, nid, memcg);
> -	spin_unlock(lock);
> -
> -	lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, NODE_DATA(entry_to_nid(entry)));
> -	/* increment the protection area to account for the LRU rotation. */
> -	atomic_long_inc(&lruvec->zswap_lruvec_state.nr_zswap_protected);
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> -}
> -
>  /*********************************
>  * rbtree functions
>  **********************************/
> @@ -860,40 +839,47 @@ static enum lru_status shrink_memcg_cb(struct list_head *item, struct list_lru_o
>  {
>  	struct zswap_entry *entry = container_of(item, struct zswap_entry, lru);
>  	bool *encountered_page_in_swapcache = (bool *)arg;
> -	struct zswap_tree *tree;
> -	pgoff_t swpoffset;
> +	swp_entry_t swpentry;
>  	enum lru_status ret = LRU_REMOVED_RETRY;
>  	int writeback_result;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Rotate the entry to the tail before unlocking the LRU,
> +	 * so that in case of an invalidation race concurrent
> +	 * reclaimers don't waste their time on it.
> +	 *
> +	 * If writeback succeeds, or failure is due to the entry
> +	 * being invalidated by the swap subsystem, the invalidation
> +	 * will unlink and free it.
> +	 *
> +	 * Temporary failures, where the same entry should be tried
> +	 * again immediately, almost never happen for this shrinker.
> +	 * We don't do any trylocking; -ENOMEM comes closest,
> +	 * but that's extremely rare and doesn't happen spuriously
> +	 * either. Don't bother distinguishing this case.
> +	 *
> +	 * But since they do exist in theory, the entry cannot just
> +	 * be unlinked, or we could leak it. Hence, rotate.

The entry cannot be unlinked because we cannot get a ref on it without
holding the tree lock, and we cannot deref the tree before we acquire a
swap cache ref in zswap_writeback_entry() -- or if
zswap_writeback_entry() fails. This should be called out explicitly
somewhere. Perhaps we can describe this whole deref dance with added
docs to shrink_memcg_cb().

We could also use a comment in zswap_writeback_entry() (or above it) to
state that we only deref the tree *after* we get the swapcache ref.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists