linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] support large folio swap-out and swap-in for shmem

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: <f302f177-44e6-b74d-f140-b3bdf734b4b1@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, 
    Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, willy@...radead.org, 
    wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, chrisl@...nel.org, ying.huang@...el.com, 
    21cnbao@...il.com, ryan.roberts@....com, shy828301@...il.com, 
    ziy@...dia.com, ioworker0@...il.com, da.gomez@...sung.com, 
    p.raghav@...sung.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] support large folio swap-out and swap-in for
 shmem

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> > 
> > (I do have doubts about Barry's: the "_new" in folio_add_new_anon_rmap()
> > was all about optimizing a known-exclusive case, so it surprises me
> > to see it being extended to non-exclusive; and I worry over how its
> > atomic_set(&page->_mapcount, 0)s can be safe when non-exclusive (but
> > I've never caught up with David's exclusive changes, I'm out of date).
> 
> We discussed that a while ago: if we wouldn't be holding the folio lock in the
> "folio == swapcache" at that point (which we do for both do_swap_page() and
> unuse_pte()) things would already be pretty broken.

You're thinking of the non-atomic-ness of atomic_set(): I agree that
the folio lock makes that safe (against other adds; but not against
concurrent removes, which could never occur with the old "_new" usage).

But what I'm worried about is the 0 in atomic_set(&page->_mapcount, 0):
once the folio lock has been dropped, another non-exclusive add could
come in and set _mapcount again to 0 instead of to 1 (mapcount 1 when
it should be 2)?

> 
> That's I added a while ago:
> 
> if (unlikely(!folio_test_anon(folio))) {
> 	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
> 	/*
> 	 * For a PTE-mapped large folio, we only know that the single
> 	 * PTE is exclusive. Further, __folio_set_anon() might not get
> 	 * folio->index right when not given the address of the head
> 	 * page.
> 	 */
> 	...
> 
> We should probably move that VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO() to folio_add_new_anon_rmap()
> and document that it's required in the non-exclusive case.
> 
> > 
> > But even if those are wrong, I'd expect them to tend towards a mapped
> > page becoming unreclaimable, then "Bad page map" when munmapped,
> > not to any of the double-free symptoms I've actually seen.)
> 
> What's the first known-good commit?

I cannot answer that with any certainty: we're on the shifting sands
of next and mm-unstable, and the bug itself is looking rather like
something which gets amplified or masked by other changes - witness
my confident arrival at Barry's series as introducing the badness,
only for a longer run then to contradict that conclusion.

There was no sign of a problem in a 20-hour run of the same load on
rc3-based next-2024-06-13 (plus my posted fixes); there has been no
sign of this problem on 6.10-rc1, rc2, rc3 (but I've not tried rc4
itself, mm.git needing the more urgent attention). mm-everything-
2024-06-15 (minus Chris's mTHP swap) did not show this problem, but
did show filemap_get_folio() hang. mm-everything-2024-06-18 (minus
Baolin's mTHP shmem swap) is where I'm hunting it.

Hugh