linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/shmem, swap: avoid redundant Xarray lookup during swapin

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: <CAMgjq7BR=99KDiSy7o_L0u_DYsnZunyokPc6FycrdExSdrdB_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:07:25 +0800
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, 
	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm/shmem, swap: avoid redundant Xarray lookup during swapin

On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 10:49 AM Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> on 6/18/2025 2:35 AM, Kairui Song wrote:
> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> >
> > Currently shmem calls xa_get_order to get the swap radix entry order,
> > requiring a full tree walk. This can be easily combined with the swap
> > entry value checking (shmem_confirm_swap) to avoid the duplicated
> > lookup, which should improve the performance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/shmem.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index 4e7ef343a29b..0ad49e57f736 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> > @@ -505,15 +505,27 @@ static int shmem_replace_entry(struct address_space *mapping,
> >
> >  /*
> >   * Sometimes, before we decide whether to proceed or to fail, we must check
> > - * that an entry was not already brought back from swap by a racing thread.
> > + * that an entry was not already brought back or split by a racing thread.
> >   *
> >   * Checking folio is not enough: by the time a swapcache folio is locked, it
> >   * might be reused, and again be swapcache, using the same swap as before.
> > + * Returns the swap entry's order if it still presents, else returns -1.
> >   */
> > -static bool shmem_confirm_swap(struct address_space *mapping,
> > -                            pgoff_t index, swp_entry_t swap)
> > +static int shmem_swap_check_entry(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
> > +                               swp_entry_t swap)
> >  {
> > -     return xa_load(&mapping->i_pages, index) == swp_to_radix_entry(swap);
> > +     XA_STATE(xas, &mapping->i_pages, index);
> > +     int ret = -1;
> > +     void *entry;
> > +
> > +     rcu_read_lock();
> > +     do {
> > +             entry = xas_load(&xas);
> > +             if (entry == swp_to_radix_entry(swap))
> > +                     ret = xas_get_order(&xas);
> > +     } while (xas_retry(&xas, entry));
> > +     rcu_read_unlock();
> > +     return ret;
> >  }
> >
> >  /*
> > @@ -2256,16 +2268,20 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> >               return -EIO;
> >
> >       si = get_swap_device(swap);
> > -     if (!si) {
> > -             if (!shmem_confirm_swap(mapping, index, swap))
> > +     order = shmem_swap_check_entry(mapping, index, swap);
> > +     if (unlikely(!si)) {
> > +             if (order < 0)
> >                       return -EEXIST;
> >               else
> >                       return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> > +     if (unlikely(order < 0)) {
> > +             put_swap_device(si);
> > +             return -EEXIST;
> > +     }
> Can we re-arrange the code block as following:
>         order = shmem_swap_check_entry(mapping, index, swap);
>         if (unlikely(order < 0))
>                 return -EEXIST;
>
>         si = get_swap_device(swap);
>         if (!si) {
>                 return -EINVAL;
> ...

Hi, thanks for the suggestion.

This may lead to a trivial higher chance of getting -EINVAL when it
should return -EEXIST, leading to user space errors.

For example if this CPU get interrupted after `order =
shmem_swap_check_entry(mapping, index, swap);`, and another CPU
swapoff-ed the device. Next, we get `si = NULL` here, but the entry is
swapped in already, so it should return -EEXIST. Not -EINVAL.

The chance is really low so it's kind of trivial, we can do a `goto
failed` if got (!si) here, but it will make the logic under `failed:`
more complex. So I'd prefer to not change the original behaviour,
which looks more correct.