Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2024 12:37:10 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,  Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
  <linux-mm@...ck.org>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
  <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: swap: Fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and
 swapoff()

Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> writes:

> On 06/03/2024 08:51, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2024/3/6 10:52, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> writes:
>>>
>>>> There was previously a theoretical window where swapoff() could run and
>>>> teardown a swap_info_struct while a call to free_swap_and_cache() was
>>>> running in another thread. This could cause, amongst other bad
>>>> possibilities, swap_page_trans_huge_swapped() (called by
>>>> free_swap_and_cache()) to access the freed memory for swap_map.
>>>>
>>>> This is a theoretical problem and I haven't been able to provoke it from
>>>> a test case. But there has been agreement based on code review that this
>>>> is possible (see link below).
>>>>
>>>> Fix it by using get_swap_device()/put_swap_device(), which will stall
>>>> swapoff(). There was an extra check in _swap_info_get() to confirm that
>>>> the swap entry was valid. This wasn't present in get_swap_device() so
>>>> I've added it. I couldn't find any existing get_swap_device() call sites
>>>> where this extra check would cause any false alarms.
>>>>
>>>> Details of how to provoke one possible issue (thanks to David Hilenbrand
>>>> for deriving this):
>>>>
>>>> --8<-----
>>>>
>>>> __swap_entry_free() might be the last user and result in
>>>> "count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE".
>>>>
>>>> swapoff->try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as soon as si->inuse_pages==0.
>>>>
>>>> So the question is: could someone reclaim the folio and turn
>>>> si->inuse_pages==0, before we completed swap_page_trans_huge_swapped().
>>>>
>>>> Imagine the following: 2 MiB folio in the swapcache. Only 2 subpages are
>>>> still references by swap entries.
>>>>
>>>> Process 1 still references subpage 0 via swap entry.
>>>> Process 2 still references subpage 1 via swap entry.
>>>>
>>>> Process 1 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
>>>> -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
>>>> [then, preempted in the hypervisor etc.]
>>>>
>>>> Process 2 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
>>>> -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
>>>>
>>>> Process 2 goes ahead, passes swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(), and calls
>>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap().
>>>>
>>>> __try_to_reclaim_swap()->folio_free_swap()->delete_from_swap_cache()->
>>>> put_swap_folio()->free_swap_slot()->swapcache_free_entries()->
>>>> swap_entry_free()->swap_range_free()->
>>>> ...
>>>> WRITE_ONCE(si->inuse_pages, si->inuse_pages - nr_entries);
>>>>
>>>> What stops swapoff to succeed after process 2 reclaimed the swap cache
>>>> but before process1 finished its call to swap_page_trans_huge_swapped()?
>>>>
>>>> --8<-----
>>>
>>> I think that this can be simplified.  Even for a 4K folio, this could
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> CPU0                                     CPU1
>>> ----                                     ----
>>>
>>> zap_pte_range
>>>   free_swap_and_cache
>>>   __swap_entry_free
>>>   /* swap count become 0 */
>>>                                          swapoff
>>>                                            try_to_unuse
>>>                                              filemap_get_folio
>>>                                              folio_free_swap
>>>                                              /* remove swap cache */
>>>                                            /* free si->swap_map[] */
>>>
>>>   swap_page_trans_huge_swapped <-- access freed si->swap_map !!!
>> 
>> Sorry for jumping the discussion here. IMHO, free_swap_and_cache is called with pte lock held.
>
> I don't beleive it has the PTL when called by shmem.

Yes, we don't hold PTL there.

After checking the code again.  I think that there may be race condition
as above without PTL.  But I may miss something, again.

>> So synchronize_rcu (called by swapoff) will wait zap_pte_range to release the pte lock. So this
>> theoretical problem can't happen. Or am I miss something?
>
> For Huang Ying's example, I agree this can't happen because try_to_unuse() will
> be waiting for the PTL (see the reply I just sent).
>
>> 
>> CPU0                                     CPU1
>> ----                                     ----
>> 
>> zap_pte_range
>>   pte_offset_map_lock -- spin_lock is held.
>>   free_swap_and_cache
>>    __swap_entry_free
>>    /* swap count become 0 */
>>                                          swapoff
>>                                            try_to_unuse
>>                                              filemap_get_folio
>>                                              folio_free_swap
>>                                              /* remove swap cache */
>> 					    percpu_ref_kill(&p->users);
>>    swap_page_trans_huge_swapped
>>   pte_unmap_unlock -- spin_lock is released.
>> 					    synchronize_rcu();  --> Will wait pte_unmap_unlock to be called?
>
> Perhaps you can educate me here; I thought that synchronize_rcu() will only wait
> for RCU critical sections to complete. The PTL is a spin lock, so why would
> synchronize_rcu() wait for the PTL to become unlocked?

Please take a look at the following link,

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/RCU/whatisRCU.html#rcu-read-lock

"
Note that anything that disables bottom halves, preemption, or
interrupts also enters an RCU read-side critical section. Acquiring a
spinlock also enters an RCU read-side critical sections, even for
spinlocks that do not disable preemption, as is the case in kernels
built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y. Sleeplocks do not enter RCU read-side
critical sections.
"

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>
>>                                            /* free si->swap_map[] */
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists