[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <453015aa-e18f-4e37-86b1-001ec4e994d1@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:59:13 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, hughd@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm/shmem: Fix potential dead loop in shmem_unuse()
On 2025/5/15 09:05, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 5/14/2025 5:24 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025/5/15 00:50, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>> If multi shmem_unuse() for different swap type is called concurrently,
>>> a dead loop could occur as following:
>>> shmem_unuse(typeA) shmem_unuse(typeB)
>>> mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex)
>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(info, next, ...)
>>> ...
>>> mutex_unlock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex)
>>> /* info->swapped may drop to 0 */
>>> shmem_unuse_inode(&info->vfs_inode, type)
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex)
>>> list_for_each_entry(info, next, ...)
>>> if (!info->swapped)
>>> list_del_init(&info->swaplist)
>>>
>>> ...
>>> mutex_unlock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex)
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex)
>>> /* iterate with offlist entry and encounter a dead loop */
>>> next = list_next_entry(info, swaplist);
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Restart the iteration if the inode is already off shmem_swaplist list
>>> to fix the issue.
>>>
>>> Fixes: b56a2d8af9147 ("mm: rid swapoff of quadratic complexity")
>>> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/shmem.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
>>> index 495e661eb8bb..0fed94c2bc09 100644
>>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>>> @@ -1505,6 +1505,7 @@ int shmem_unuse(unsigned int type)
>>> return 0;
>>> mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
>>> +start_over:
>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(info, next, &shmem_swaplist, swaplist) {
>>> if (!info->swapped) {
>>> list_del_init(&info->swaplist);
>>> @@ -1530,6 +1531,8 @@ int shmem_unuse(unsigned int type)
>>
>> next = list_next_entry(info, swaplist);
>> if (!info->swapped)
>> list_del_init(&info->swaplist);
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&info->stop_eviction))
>> wake_up_var(&info->stop_eviction);
>>
>> We may still hit the list warning when calling list_del_init() for the off-list info->swaplist? So I hope we can add a check for the possible off-list:
> Hello,
> When entry is taken off list, it will be initialized to a valid empty entry
> with INIT_LIST_HEAD(). So it should be fine to call list_del_init() for
> off-list entry.
> Please correct me if I miss anything. Thanks!
Ah, yes. I got confused with list_del(), but I still think we should not
continue to operate on an off-list entry.
>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
>> index 99327c30507c..f5ae5e2d6fb4 100644
>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>> @@ -1523,9 +1523,11 @@ int shmem_unuse(unsigned int type)
>> cond_resched();
>>
>> mutex_lock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
>> - next = list_next_entry(info, swaplist);
>> - if (!info->swapped)
>> - list_del_init(&info->swaplist);
>> + if (!list_empty(&info->swaplist)) {
>> + next = list_next_entry(info, swaplist);
>> + if (!info->swapped)
>> + list_del_init(&info->swaplist);
>> + }
>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&info->stop_eviction))
>> wake_up_var(&info->stop_eviction);
>> if (error)
>>
>>> wake_up_var(&info->stop_eviction);
>>> if (error)
>>> break;
>>> + if (list_empty(&info->swaplist))
>>> + goto start_over;
>>> }
>>> mutex_unlock(&shmem_swaplist_mutex);
>>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists