| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMgjq7CuwHEWqmUG=4-nAtCrGJJjUM_1TY=ToFUAm0NXxMV3iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:54:43 +0800
From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.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, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] mm/shmem, swap: improve cached mTHP handling and
fix potential hung
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 11:52 AM Baolin Wang
<baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2025/7/25 02:16, Kairui Song wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 1:02 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:37 AM Kairui Song <ryncsn@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> >>>
> >>> The current swap-in code assumes that, when a swap entry in shmem mapping
> >>> is order 0, its cached folios (if present) must be order 0 too, which
> >>> turns out not always correct.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is shmem_split_large_entry is called before verifying the
> >>> folio will eventually be swapped in, one possible race is:
> >>>
> >>> CPU1 CPU2
> >>> shmem_swapin_folio
> >>> /* swap in of order > 0 swap entry S1 */
> >>> folio = swap_cache_get_folio
> >>> /* folio = NULL */
> >>> order = xa_get_order
> >>> /* order > 0 */
> >>> folio = shmem_swap_alloc_folio
> >>> /* mTHP alloc failure, folio = NULL */
> >>> <... Interrupted ...>
> >>> shmem_swapin_folio
> >>> /* S1 is swapped in */
> >>> shmem_writeout
> >>> /* S1 is swapped out, folio cached */
> >>> shmem_split_large_entry(..., S1)
> >>> /* S1 is split, but the folio covering it has order > 0 now */
> >>>
> >>> Now any following swapin of S1 will hang: `xa_get_order` returns 0, and
> >>> folio lookup will return a folio with order > 0. The
> >>> `xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index) != folio_order(folio)` will always
> >>> return false causing swap-in to return -EEXIST.
> >>>
> >>> And this looks fragile. So fix this up by allowing seeing a larger folio
> >>> in swap cache, and check the whole shmem mapping range covered by the
> >>> swapin have the right swap value upon inserting the folio. And drop the
> >>> redundant tree walks before the insertion.
> >>>
> >>> This will actually improve performance, as it avoids two redundant Xarray
> >>> tree walks in the hot path, and the only side effect is that in the
> >>> failure path, shmem may redundantly reallocate a few folios causing
> >>> temporary slight memory pressure.
> >>>
> >>> And worth noting, it may seems the order and value check before inserting
> >>> might help reducing the lock contention, which is not true. The swap
> >>> cache layer ensures raced swapin will either see a swap cache folio or
> >>> failed to do a swapin (we have SWAP_HAS_CACHE bit even if swap cache is
> >>> bypassed), so holding the folio lock and checking the folio flag is
> >>> already good enough for avoiding the lock contention. The chance that a
> >>> folio passes the swap entry value check but the shmem mapping slot has
> >>> changed should be very low.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 809bc86517cc ("mm: shmem: support large folio swap out")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >>> Tested-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> >>> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> mm/shmem.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Just found some issue here with this patch...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> >>> index 334b7b4a61a0..e3c9a1365ff4 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> >>> @@ -884,7 +884,9 @@ static int shmem_add_to_page_cache(struct folio *folio,
> >>> pgoff_t index, void *expected, gfp_t gfp)
> >>> {
> >>> XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &mapping->i_pages, index, folio_order(folio));
> >>> - long nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>> + unsigned long nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>> + swp_entry_t iter, swap;
> >>> + void *entry;
> >>>
> >>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(index != round_down(index, nr), folio);
> >>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_locked(folio), folio);
> >>> @@ -896,14 +898,24 @@ static int shmem_add_to_page_cache(struct folio *folio,
> >>>
> >>> gfp &= GFP_RECLAIM_MASK;
> >>> folio_throttle_swaprate(folio, gfp);
> >>> + swap = iter = radix_to_swp_entry(expected);
> >>>
> >>> do {
> >>> xas_lock_irq(&xas);
> >>
> >> I missed a xas_reset here, also better reset iter value too.
> >>
> >>> - if (expected != xas_find_conflict(&xas)) {
> >>> - xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST);
> >>> - goto unlock;
> >>> + xas_for_each_conflict(&xas, entry) {
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The range must either be empty, or filled with
> >>> + * expected swap entries. Shmem swap entries are never
> >>> + * partially freed without split of both entry and
> >>> + * folio, so there shouldn't be any holes.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (!expected || entry != swp_to_radix_entry(iter)) {
> >>> + xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST);
> >>> + goto unlock;
> >>> + }
> >>> + iter.val += 1 << xas_get_order(&xas);
> >>> }
> >>> - if (expected && xas_find_conflict(&xas)) {
> >>> + if (expected && iter.val - nr != swap.val) {
> >>> xas_set_err(&xas, -EEXIST);
> >>> goto unlock;
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -2323,7 +2335,7 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> >>> error = -ENOMEM;
> >>> goto failed;
> >>> }
> >>> - } else if (order != folio_order(folio)) {
> >>> + } else if (order > folio_order(folio)) {
> >>> /*
> >>> * Swap readahead may swap in order 0 folios into swapcache
> >>> * asynchronously, while the shmem mapping can still stores
> >>> @@ -2348,15 +2360,15 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
> >>>
> >>> swap = swp_entry(swp_type(swap), swp_offset(swap) + offset);
> >>> }
> >>> + } else if (order < folio_order(folio)) {
> >>> + swap.val = round_down(swap.val, 1 << folio_order(folio));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> alloced:
> >>> /* We have to do this with folio locked to prevent races */
> >>> folio_lock(folio);
> >>> if ((!skip_swapcache && !folio_test_swapcache(folio)) ||
> >>> - / ||
> >>> - !shmem_confirm_swap(mapping, index, swap) ||
> >>> - xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index) != folio_order(folio)) {
> >>
> >> And this part is incorrect. This `shmem_confirm_swap(mapping, index,
> >> swap) ` can't be simply omitted. Some functions below before the
> >> shmem_add_to_page_cache shouldn't be called on folios might have
> >> already been mapped by others. This shmem_confirm_swap ensures that
> >> won't happen.
>
> OK, thanks for the reminding. But could you elaborate a bit? Which
> function should not be called, and what problem might be caused?
Yes, first shmem_add_to_page_cache itself will reset the
folio->mapping and index before verifying the mapping.
So even if the folio is still a valid swap cache folio and the
folio->swap.val matches swap.val, a parallel swapin could have swapped
in the freed this folio from swap, and now it's possible that the
folio is now part of anon memory:
CPU1 CPU2
/* Start swap in of swap entry S1 */
shmem_swapin_folio
/* Interrupted */
/* Raced swap in of swap entry S1 */
shmem_swapin_folio
/* Swapin done, S1 is freed */
/* Anon swapout of folio A using S1 */
pageout(folio) != PAGE_SUCCESS
/* Now anon folio A is in swpa cache */
folio = swap_cache_get_folio
/* Got folio A */
if (!folio_test_swapcache(folio)
folio->swap.val != swap.val))
error = -EEXIST;
/* Check passed, folio A is using S1 as swap entry */
shmem_add_to_page_cache
folio->mapping = mapping
/* BUG: folio->mapping is an anon mapping, info lost */
And I managed to trigger this issue, it will result in at least an RSS
counter error like this:
[ 1944.374356] BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:ffff0000c1539640
type:MM_ANONPAGES val:1
[ 1944.374384] BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:ffff0000c1539640
type:MM_SHMEMPAGES val:-1
Clearly it will trigger even more issues.
And other helpers like arch_swap_restore and shmem_replace_folio, they
seems to be OK, but if the folio is not part of shmem anymore they
better stay off of it too. So for safety measure I think we'd better
add the shmem_confirm_swap back. And only checking the first swap
entry is good enough.
>
> >> It may seem like a small change, but it leads to some minor conflicts
> >> in one or two following commits, the benchmark result will change too.
> >> So I'll have to send a V6 I think.
> >>
> >> We can remove this `shmem_confirm_swap`, but not in this series I
> >> think, maybe after this. Need to re-arrange some functions, with some
> >> clean ups for shmem_add_to_page_cache and others.
> >>
> >>> + folio->swap.val != swap.val) {
> >>> error = -EEXIST;
> >>> goto unlock;
> >>> }
> >>> --
> >>> 2.50.0
> >>>
> >>
> >> In summary, I'll squash this patch into it and do a rebase of later commits:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> >> index e3c9a1365ff4..4ca0b665b79e 100644
> >> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> >> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> >> @@ -898,9 +898,11 @@ static int shmem_add_to_page_cache(struct folio *folio,
> >>
> >> gfp &= GFP_RECLAIM_MASK;
> >> folio_throttle_swaprate(folio, gfp);
> >> - swap = iter = radix_to_swp_entry(expected);
> >> + swap = radix_to_swp_entry(expected);
> >>
> >> do {
> >> + iter = swap;
> >> + xas_reset(&xas);
> >
> > Correction: this xas_reset is not needed, the iter = swap is needed.
>
> Indeed, my tests do not cover the scenario where xas_nomem() returns true.
>
> >> xas_lock_irq(&xas);
> >> xas_for_each_conflict(&xas, entry) {
> >> /*
> >> @@ -2365,9 +2367,16 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode
> >> *inode, pgoff_t index,
> >> }
> >>
> >> alloced:
> >
> > And it needs `nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); index =
> > round_down(index, nr_pages);` here...
>
> IIUC, the index alignment should move into the 'order <
> folio_order(folio)' branch?
Ok, I'll move it here. It should be fine either way.
>
> >> - /* We have to do this with folio locked to prevent races */
> >> + /*
> >> + * We have to do this with folio locked to prevent races.
> >> + * The shmem_confirm_swap below only checks if the first swap
> >> + * entry matches the folio, that's enough to ensure the folio
> >> + * is not used outside of shmem, as shmem swap entrie
> >> + * and swap cache folios are never partially freed.
> >> + */
> >> folio_lock(folio);
> >> if ((!skip_swapcache && !folio_test_swapcache(folio)) ||
> >> + !shmem_confirm_swap(mapping, index, swap) ||
> >> folio->swap.val != swap.val) {
> >> error = -EEXIST;
> >> goto unlock;
> >>
> >> And I'll do some clean up afterward to get rid of this
> >> shmem_confirm_swap. How do you think?
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists