linux-kernel - Re: summarize all information again at bottom//reply: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGWkznF3GfCs8odhR-Hue5H8MZ=eXb82V20ZoCCjeoSjAPQ9cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:27:31 +0800
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: 黄朝阳 (Zhaoyang Huang) <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>, 
	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: Re: summarize all information again at bottom//reply: reply: [PATCH]
 mm: fix a race scenario in folio_isolate_lru

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 8:31 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 09:25:59AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > Ignoring any other thread, you're basically saying that there's a
> > > refcount imbalance here.  Which means we'd hit an assert (that folio
> > > refcount went below zero) in the normal case where another thread wasn't
> > > simultaneously trying to do anything.
> > Theoretically Yes but it is rare in practice as aops->readahead will
> > launch all pages to IO under most scenarios.
>
> Rare, but this path has been tested.
>
> > read_pages
> >     aops->readahead[1]
> > ...
> >     while (folio = readahead_folio)[2]
> >         filemap_remove_folio
> >
> > IMO, according to the comments of readahead_page, the refcnt
> > represents page cache dropped in [1] makes sense for two reasons, '1.
> > The folio is going to do IO and is locked until IO done;2. The refcnt
> > will be added back when found again from the page cache and then serve
> > for PTE or vfs' while it doesn't make sense in [2] as the refcnt of
> > page cache will be dropped in filemap_remove_folio
> >
> >  * Context: The page is locked and has an elevated refcount.  The caller
> >  * should decreases the refcount once the page has been submitted for I/O
> >  * and unlock the page once all I/O to that page has completed.
> >  * Return: A pointer to the next page, or %NULL if we are done.
>
> Follow the refcount through.
>
> In page_cache_ra_unbounded():
>
>                 folio = filemap_alloc_folio(gfp_mask, 0);
> (folio has refcount 1)
>                 ret = filemap_add_folio(mapping, folio, index + i, gfp_mask);
> (folio has refcount 2)
>
> Then we call read_pages()
> First we call ->readahead() which for some reason stops early.
> Then we call readahead_folio() which calls folio_put()
> (folio has refcount 1)
> Then we call folio_get()
> (folio has refcount 2)
> Then we call filemap_remove_folio()
> (folio has refcount 1)
> Then we call folio_unlock()
> Then we call folio_put()
ok, I missed the refcnt from alloc_pages. However, I still think it is
a bug to call readahead_folio in read_pages as the refcnt obtained by
alloc_pages should be its final guard which is paired to the one which
checked in shrink_folio_list->__remove_mapping->folio_ref_freeze(2)(this
2 represent alloc_pages & page cache). If we removed this one without
isolating the folio from LRU, the following race could happen.
Furthermore, the refcnt dropped in the readahead_folio represents page
cache, it doesn't make sense to drop it twice in read_pages.

0. Thread_readahead:
    folio_put()
        folio_put_test_zero() == true
        __folio_put()
            folio_test_lru() == true
            <preempted>

1. Thread_isolate
     folio_isolate_lru
         folio_test_clear_lru()
         lruvec_del_folio()

2. Thread_readahead
    folio_put()
        folio_put_test_zero() == true
        __folio_put
            folio_test_lru() == true
            <schedule back from 0>
            lruvec_del_folio()



> (folio has refcount 0 and is freed)
>
> Yes, other things can happen in there to increment the refcount, so this
> folio_put() might not be the last put, but we hold the folio locked the
> entire time, so many things which might be attempted will block on the
> folio lock.  In particular, nobody can remove it from the page cache,
> so its refcount cannot reach 0 until the last folio_put() of the
> sequence.