linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] mm/shmem, swap: remove redundant error handling for replacing folio

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: <1ee09786-ed3c-485e-99e4-48c4d2b92ced@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 11:17:06 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
 Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
 Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
 Ying Huang <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] mm/shmem, swap: remove redundant error handling
 for replacing folio



On 2025/9/6 03:13, Kairui Song wrote:
> From: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> 
> Shmem may replace a folio in the swap cache if the cached one doesn't
> fit the swapin's GFP zone. When doing so, shmem has already double
> checked that the swap cache folio is locked, still has the swap cache
> flag set, and contains the wanted swap entry. So it is impossible to
> fail due to an Xarray mismatch. There is even a comment for that.
> 
> Delete the defensive error handling path, and add a WARN_ON instead:
> if that happened, something has broken the basic principle of how the
> swap cache works, we should catch and fix that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> ---
>   mm/shmem.c | 42 ++++++++++++------------------------------
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index 4e27e8e5da3b..cc6a0007c7a6 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -1698,13 +1698,13 @@ int shmem_writeout(struct folio *folio, struct swap_iocb **plug,
>   		}
>   
>   		/*
> -		 * The delete_from_swap_cache() below could be left for
> +		 * The swap_cache_del_folio() below could be left for
>   		 * shrink_folio_list()'s folio_free_swap() to dispose of;
>   		 * but I'm a little nervous about letting this folio out of
>   		 * shmem_writeout() in a hybrid half-tmpfs-half-swap state
>   		 * e.g. folio_mapping(folio) might give an unexpected answer.
>   		 */
> -		delete_from_swap_cache(folio);
> +		swap_cache_del_folio(folio);
>   		goto redirty;
>   	}

You should reorganize your patch set, as the swap_cache_del_folio() 
function is introduced in patch 9.

>   	if (nr_pages > 1)
> @@ -2082,7 +2082,7 @@ static struct folio *shmem_swap_alloc_folio(struct inode *inode,
>   	new->swap = entry;
>   
>   	memcg1_swapin(entry, nr_pages);
> -	shadow = get_shadow_from_swap_cache(entry);
> +	shadow = swap_cache_get_shadow(entry);

Ditto.

>   	if (shadow)
>   		workingset_refault(new, shadow);
>   	folio_add_lru(new);
> @@ -2158,35 +2158,17 @@ static int shmem_replace_folio(struct folio **foliop, gfp_t gfp,
>   	/* Swap cache still stores N entries instead of a high-order entry */
>   	xa_lock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
>   	for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> -		void *item = xas_load(&xas);
> -
> -		if (item != old) {
> -			error = -ENOENT;
> -			break;
> -		}
> -
> -		xas_store(&xas, new);
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(xas_store(&xas, new));
>   		xas_next(&xas);
>   	}
> -	if (!error) {
> -		mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
> -		shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
> -		shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
> -	}
>   	xa_unlock_irq(&swap_mapping->i_pages);
>   
> -	if (unlikely(error)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * Is this possible?  I think not, now that our callers
> -		 * check both the swapcache flag and folio->private
> -		 * after getting the folio lock; but be defensive.
> -		 * Reverse old to newpage for clear and free.
> -		 */
> -		old = new;
> -	} else {
> -		folio_add_lru(new);
> -		*foliop = new;
> -	}
> +	mem_cgroup_replace_folio(old, new);
> +	shmem_update_stats(new, nr_pages);
> +	shmem_update_stats(old, -nr_pages);
> +
> +	folio_add_lru(new);
> +	*foliop = new;
>   
>   	folio_clear_swapcache(old);
>   	old->private = NULL;
> @@ -2220,7 +2202,7 @@ static void shmem_set_folio_swapin_error(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   	nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>   	folio_wait_writeback(folio);
>   	if (!skip_swapcache)
> -		delete_from_swap_cache(folio);
> +		swap_cache_del_folio(folio);
>   	/*
>   	 * Don't treat swapin error folio as alloced. Otherwise inode->i_blocks
>   	 * won't be 0 when inode is released and thus trigger WARN_ON(i_blocks)
> @@ -2459,7 +2441,7 @@ static int shmem_swapin_folio(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t index,
>   		folio->swap.val = 0;
>   		swapcache_clear(si, swap, nr_pages);
>   	} else {
> -		delete_from_swap_cache(folio);
> +		swap_cache_del_folio(folio);
>   	}
>   	folio_mark_dirty(folio);
>   	swap_free_nr(swap, nr_pages);