linux-kernel - reply: [PATCH] mm: fix a race scenario in folio_isolate

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b88ce9ecad0d456d8adbc78e42ec713a@BJMBX01.spreadtrum.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:37:04 +0000
From: 黄朝阳 (Zhaoyang Huang)
	<zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Zhaoyang Huang
	<huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org"
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        康纪滨 (Steve Kang)
	<Steve.Kang@...soc.com>
Subject: reply: [PATCH] mm: fix a race scenario in folio_isolate_lru

>
>
>On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:07:40PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> Could it be this scenario, where folio comes from pte(thread 0), local
>> fbatch(thread 1) and page cache(thread 2) concurrently and proceed
>> intermixed without lock's protection? Actually, IMO, thread 1 also
>> could see the folio with refcnt==1 since it doesn't care if the page
>> is on the page cache or not.
>>
>> madivise_cold_and_pageout does no explicit folio_get thing since the
>> folio comes from pte which implies it has one refcnt from pagecache
>
>Mmm, no.  It's implicit, but madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range()
>does guarantee that the folio has at least one refcount.
>
>Since we get the folio from vm_normal_folio(vma, addr, ptent); we know that
>there is at least one mapcount on the folio.  refcount is always >= mapcount.
>Since we hold pte_offset_map_lock(), we know that mapcount (and therefore
>refcount) cannot be decremented until we call pte_unmap_unlock(), which we
>don't do until we have called folio_isolate_lru().
>
>Good try though, took me a few minutes of looking at it to convince myself that
>it was safe.
>
>Something to bear in mind is that if the race you outline is real, failing to hold a
>refcount on the folio leaves the caller susceptible to the
>VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_ref_count(folio), folio); if the other thread calls
>folio_put().
Resend the chart via outlook.
I think the problem rely on an special timing which is rare, I would like to list them below in timing sequence.

1. thread 0 calls folio_isolate_lru with refcnt == 1
2. thread 1 calls release_pages with refcnt == 2.(IMO, it could be 1 as release_pages doesn't care if the folio is used by page cache or fs)
3. thread 2 decrease refcnt to 1 by calling filemap_free_folio.(as I mentioned in 2, thread 2 is not mandatary here)
4. thread 1 calls folio_put_testzero and pass.(lruvec->lock has not been take here)
5. thread 0 clear folio's PG_lru by calling folio_test_clear_lru. The folio_get behind has no meaning there.
6. thread 1 failed in folio_test_lru and leave the folio on the LRU.
7. thread 1 add folio to pages_to_free wrongly which could break the LRU's->list and will have next folio experience list_del_invalid

#thread 0(madivise_cold_and_pageout)        #1(lru_add_drain->fbatch_release_pages)       #2(read_pages->filemap_remove_folios)
refcnt == 1(represent page cache)             refcnt==2(another one represent LRU)          folio comes from page cache

folio_isolate_lru                           release_pages                             filemap_free_folio
                                        										 refcnt==1(decrease the one of page cache)
folio_test_clear_lru
<folio's PG_lru gone>
										folio_put_testzero == true
folio_get
										folio_test_lru == false
									  	<No lruvec_del_folio>
										list_add(folio->lru, pages_to_free)
										//current folio will break LRU's integrity since it has not been deleted
>
>I can't understand any of the scenarios you outline below.
>Please try again without relying on indentation.
>
>> #thread 0(madivise_cold_and_pageout)        #1
>> (lru_add_drain->fbatch_release_pages)
>> #2(read_pages->filemap_remove_folios)
>> refcnt == 1(represent page cache)
>>
>> refcnt==2(another one represent LRU)
>>    folio comes from page cache
>> folio_isolate_lru
>> release_pages
>>                  filemap_free_folio
>>
>>
>>                              refcnt==1(decrease the one of page
>cache)
>>
>>  folio_put_testzero == true
>>
>>   <No lruvec_del_folio>
>>
>>  list_add(folio->lru, pages_to_free) //current folio will break LRU's
>> integrity since it has not been deleted
>>
>> In case of gmail's wrap, split above chart to two parts
>>
>> #thread 0(madivise_cold_and_pageout)        #1
>> (lru_add_drain->fbatch_release_pages)
>> refcnt == 1(represent page cache)
>>
>> refcnt==2(another one represent LRU)
>> folio_isolate_lru
>release_pages
>>
>>  folio_put_testzero == true
>>
>>   <No lruvec_del_folio>
>>
>>  list_add(folio->lru, pages_to_free)
>>
>>  //current folio will break LRU's integrity since it has not been
>> deleted
>>
>> #1 (lru_add_drain->fbatch_release_pages)
>> #2(read_pages->filemap_remove_folios)
>> refcnt==2(another one represent LRU)
>>    folio comes from page cache
>> release_pages
>>                  filemap_free_folio
>>
>>                             refcnt==1(decrease the one of page
>cache)
>> folio_put_testzero == true  <No lruvec_del_folio>
>> list_add(folio->lru, pages_to_free) //current folio will break LRU's
>> integrity since it has not been deleted
>> >
>> > >    #0 folio_isolate_lru          #1 release_pages
>> > > BUG_ON(!folio_refcnt)
>> > >                                          if
>(folio_put_testzero())
>> > >    folio_get(folio)
>> > >    if (folio_test_clear_lru())