On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:13:51AM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:27 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/8/25 16:46, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 2:11 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 04:22:56PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > >> > > Thanks, Josef. I guess we can at least try to confirm we're on the right track.
> > >> > > Can anyone affected see if this (only compile tested) patch fixes the issue?
> > >> > > Created on top of 6.13.1.
> > >> >
> > >> > This fixes the crash for me on 6.14.0-rc1. I ran the repro using
> > >> > Mantas's instructions for Obfuscate. I was able to trigger the crash
> > >> > on a clean build and then with this patch, I'm not seeing the crash
> > >> > anymore.
> > >>
> > >> Since this patch fixes the bug, we're looking for one call to folio_put()
> > >> too many. Is it possibly in fuse_try_move_page()? In particular, this
> > >> one:
> > >>
> > >> /* Drop ref for ap->pages[] array */
> > >> folio_put(oldfolio);
> > >>
> > >> I don't know fuse very well. Maybe this isn't it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, this looks it to me. We don't grab a folio reference for the
> > > ap->pages[] array for readahead and it tracks with Mantas's
> > > fuse_dev_splice_write() dmesg. this patch fixed the crash for me when
> > > I tested it yesterday:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > index 7d92a5479998..172cab8e2caf 100644
> > > --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > > @@ -955,8 +955,10 @@ static void fuse_readpages_end(struct fuse_mount
> > > *fm, struct fuse_args *args,
> > > fuse_invalidate_atime(inode);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - for (i = 0; i < ap->num_folios; i++)
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ap->num_folios; i++) {
> > > folio_end_read(ap->folios[i], !err);
> > > + folio_put(ap->folios[i]);
> > > + }
> > > if (ia->ff)
> > > fuse_file_put(ia->ff, false);
> > >
> > > @@ -1049,6 +1051,7 @@ static void fuse_readahead(struct readahead_control *rac)
> > >
> > > while (ap->num_folios < cur_pages) {
> > > folio = readahead_folio(rac);
> > > + folio_get(folio);
> >
> > This is almost the same as my patch, but balances the folio_put() in
> > readahead_folio() with another folio_get(), while mine uses
> > __readahead_folio() that does not do folio_put() in the first place.
> >
> > But I think neither patch proves the extraneous folio_put() comes from
> > fuse_try_move_page().
> >
> > > ap->folios[ap->num_folios] = folio;
> > > ap->descs[ap->num_folios].length = folio_size(folio);
> > > ap->num_folios++;
> > >
> > >
> > > I reran it just now with a printk by that ref drop in
> > > fuse_try_move_page() and I'm indeed seeing that path get hit.
> >
> > It might get hit, but is it hit in the readahead paths? One way to test
> > would be to instead of yours above or mine change, to stop doing the
> > foio_put() in fuse_try_move_page(). But maybe it's called also from other
> > contexts that do expect it, and will leak memory otherwise.
>
> When I tested it a few days ago, I printk-ed the address of the folio
> and it matched in fuse_readahead() and try_move_page(). I think that
> proves that the extra folio_put() came from fuse_try_move_page()
> through the readahead path.
This patch should fix the problem, let me know if it's stil happening
