| 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: <87o7cerwmt.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 16:42:50 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Minchan Kim
<minchan@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Barry Song
<v-songbaohua@...o.com>, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins
<hughd@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Matthew Wilcox
<willy@...radead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Yosry Ahmed
<yosryahmed@...gle.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/swap: fix race when skipping swapcache
Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 6:15 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 10:53 PM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> >
>> > When skipping swapcache for SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO, if two or more threads
>> > swapin the same entry at the same time, they get different pages (A, B).
>> > Before one thread (T0) finishes the swapin and installs page (A)
>> > to the PTE, another thread (T1) could finish swapin of page (B),
>> > swap_free the entry, then swap out the possibly modified page
>> > reusing the same entry. It breaks the pte_same check in (T0) because
>> > PTE value is unchanged, causing ABA problem. Thread (T0) will
>> > install a stalled page (A) into the PTE and cause data corruption.
>> >
>> > One possible callstack is like this:
>> >
>> > CPU0 CPU1
>> > ---- ----
>> > do_swap_page() do_swap_page() with same entry
>> > <direct swapin path> <direct swapin path>
>> > <alloc page A> <alloc page B>
>> > swap_read_folio() <- read to page A swap_read_folio() <- read to page B
>> > <slow on later locks or interrupt> <finished swapin first>
>> > .. set_pte_at()
>> > swap_free() <- entry is free
>> > <write to page B, now page A stalled>
>> > <swap out page B to same swap entry>
>> > pte_same() <- Check pass, PTE seems
>> > unchanged, but page A
>> > is stalled!
>> > swap_free() <- page B content lost!
>> > set_pte_at() <- staled page A installed!
>> >
>> > And besides, for ZRAM, swap_free() allows the swap device to discard
>> > the entry content, so even if page (B) is not modified, if
>> > swap_read_folio() on CPU0 happens later than swap_free() on CPU1,
>> > it may also cause data loss.
>> >
>> > To fix this, reuse swapcache_prepare which will pin the swap entry using
>> > the cache flag, and allow only one thread to pin it. Release the pin
>> > after PT unlocked. Racers will simply wait since it's a rare and very
>> > short event. A schedule() call is added to avoid wasting too much CPU
>> > or adding too much noise to perf statistics
>> >
>> > Other methods like increasing the swap count don't seem to be a good
>> > idea after some tests, that will cause racers to fall back to use the
>> > swap cache again. Parallel swapin using different methods leads to
>> > a much more complex scenario.
>> >
>> > Reproducer:
>> >
>> > This race issue can be triggered easily using a well constructed
>> > reproducer and patched brd (with a delay in read path) [1]:
>> >
>> > With latest 6.8 mainline, race caused data loss can be observed easily:
>> > $ gcc -g -lpthread test-thread-swap-race.c && ./a.out
>> > Polulating 32MB of memory region...
>> > Keep swapping out...
>> > Starting round 0...
>> > Spawning 65536 workers...
>> > 32746 workers spawned, wait for done...
>> > Round 0: Error on 0x5aa00, expected 32746, got 32743, 3 data loss!
>> > Round 0: Error on 0x395200, expected 32746, got 32743, 3 data loss!
>> > Round 0: Error on 0x3fd000, expected 32746, got 32737, 9 data loss!
>> > Round 0 Failed, 15 data loss!
>> >
>> > This reproducer spawns multiple threads sharing the same memory region
>> > using a small swap device. Every two threads updates mapped pages one by
>> > one in opposite direction trying to create a race, with one dedicated
>> > thread keep swapping out the data out using madvise.
>> >
>> > The reproducer created a reproduce rate of about once every 5 minutes,
>> > so the race should be totally possible in production.
>> >
>> > After this patch, I ran the reproducer for over a few hundred rounds
>> > and no data loss observed.
>> >
>> > Performance overhead is minimal, microbenchmark swapin 10G from 32G
>> > zram:
>> >
>> > Before: 10934698 us
>> > After: 11157121 us
>> > Non-direct: 13155355 us (Dropping SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO flag)
>> >
>> > Fixes: 0bcac06f27d7 ("mm, swap: skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device")
>> > Link: https://github.com/ryncsn/emm-test-project/tree/master/swap-stress-race [1]
>> > Reported-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87bk92gqpx.fsf_-_@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/
>> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
>> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Update from V2:
>> > - Add a schedule() if raced to prevent repeated page faults wasting CPU
>> > and add noise to perf statistics.
>> > - Use a bool to state the special case instead of reusing existing
>> > variables fixing error handling [Minchan Kim].
>> >
>> > V2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240206182559.32264-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
>> >
>> > Update from V1:
>> > - Add some words on ZRAM case, it will discard swap content on swap_free so the race window is a bit different but cure is the same. [Barry Song]
>> > - Update comments make it cleaner [Huang, Ying]
>> > - Add a function place holder to fix CONFIG_SWAP=n built [SeongJae Park]
>> > - Update the commit message and summary, refer to SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO instead of "direct swapin path" [Yu Zhao]
>> > - Update commit message.
>> > - Collect Review and Acks.
>> >
>> > V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240205110959.4021-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
>> >
>> > include/linux/swap.h | 5 +++++
>> > mm/memory.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> > mm/swap.h | 5 +++++
>> > mm/swapfile.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> > 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> > index 4db00ddad261..8d28f6091a32 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> > @@ -549,6 +549,11 @@ static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t swp)
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp)
>> > +{
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > static inline void swap_free(swp_entry_t swp)
>> > {
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> > index 7e1f4849463a..7059230d0a54 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memory.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> > @@ -3799,6 +3799,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > struct page *page;
>> > struct swap_info_struct *si = NULL;
>> > rmap_t rmap_flags = RMAP_NONE;
>> > + bool need_clear_cache = false;
>> > bool exclusive = false;
>> > swp_entry_t entry;
>> > pte_t pte;
>> > @@ -3867,6 +3868,20 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> > if (!folio) {
>> > if (data_race(si->flags & SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO) &&
>> > __swap_count(entry) == 1) {
>> > + /*
>> > + * Prevent parallel swapin from proceeding with
>> > + * the cache flag. Otherwise, another thread may
>> > + * finish swapin first, free the entry, and swapout
>> > + * reusing the same entry. It's undetectable as
>> > + * pte_same() returns true due to entry reuse.
>> > + */
>> > + if (swapcache_prepare(entry)) {
>> > + /* Relax a bit to prevent rapid repeated page faults */
>> > + schedule();
>> > + goto out;
>> > + }
>> > + need_clear_cache = true;
>>
>> Hi Kairui,
>> i remember Ying had a suggestion to move swapcache_prepare after
>> swap_read_folio() to decrease race window. does that one even help
>> more to somehow "fix" the counting issue?
>>
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> Yes, that's one of the suggestions, I found the result already looks
> good enough in test scenario I've posted after adding scheduler()
> change. After moving swapcache_prepare actually waste more CPU as it
> need to alloc/free extra folios now, and test result for the counting
> issue barely changed, so I kept the original code.
The time to allocate folios is unbounded, especially when direct
reclaiming is triggered. And we can clear swap cache flag earlier to
reduce the race window too.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists