| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20240201-b4-zswap-invalidate-entry-v2-1-99d4084260a0@bytedance.com> Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2024 03:05:59 +0000 From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com> To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/6] mm/zswap: add more comments in shrink_memcg_cb() Add more comments in shrink_memcg_cb() to describe the deref dance which is implemented to fix race problem between lru writeback and swapoff, and the reason why we rotate the entry at the beginning. Also fix the stale comments in zswap_writeback_entry(), and add more comments to state that we only deref the tree after we get the swapcache reference. Suggested-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com> --- mm/zswap.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c index 4aea03285532..735f1a6ef336 100644 --- a/mm/zswap.c +++ b/mm/zswap.c @@ -1207,10 +1207,12 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry, /* * folio is locked, and the swapcache is now secured against - * concurrent swapping to and from the slot. Verify that the - * swap entry hasn't been invalidated and recycled behind our - * backs (our zswap_entry reference doesn't prevent that), to - * avoid overwriting a new swap folio with old compressed data. + * concurrent swapping to and from the slot, and concurrent + * swapoff so we can safely dereference the zswap tree here. + * Verify that the swap entry hasn't been invalidated and recycled + * behind our backs, to avoid overwriting a new swap folio with + * old compressed data. Only when this is successful can the entry + * be dereferenced. */ tree = swap_zswap_tree(swpentry); spin_lock(&tree->lock); @@ -1263,22 +1265,29 @@ static enum lru_status shrink_memcg_cb(struct list_head *item, struct list_lru_o 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. + * As soon as we drop the LRU lock, the entry can be freed by + * a concurrent invalidation. This means the following: * - * If writeback succeeds, or failure is due to the entry - * being invalidated by the swap subsystem, the invalidation - * will unlink and free it. + * 1. We extract the swp_entry_t to the stack, allowing + * zswap_writeback_entry() to pin the swap entry and + * then validate the zwap entry against that swap entry's + * tree using pointer value comparison. Only when that + * is successful can the entry be dereferenced. * - * 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. + * 2. Usually, objects are taken off the LRU for reclaim. In + * this case this isn't possible, because if reclaim fails + * for whatever reason, we have no means of knowing if the + * entry is alive to put it back on the LRU. * - * But since they do exist in theory, the entry cannot just - * be unlinked, or we could leak it. Hence, rotate. + * So rotate it before dropping the lock. If the entry is + * written back or invalidated, the free path will unlink + * it. For failures, rotation is the right thing as well. + * + * 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. */ list_move_tail(item, &l->list); -- b4 0.10.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists