On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:42:20 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> When the swapin is performed, after getting the swap entry information
> from the page table, system will swap in the swap entry, without any
> lock held to prevent the swap device from being swapoff. This may
> cause the race like below,
Sigh. In terms of putting all the work into the swapoff path and
avoiding overheads in the hot paths, I guess this is about as good as
it will get.
It's a very low-priority fix so I'd prefer to keep the patch in -mm
until Hugh has had an opportunity to think about it.
> ...
>
> +/*
> + * Check whether swap entry is valid in the swap device. If so,
> + * return pointer to swap_info_struct, and keep the swap entry valid
> + * via preventing the swap device from being swapoff, until
> + * put_swap_device() is called. Otherwise return NULL.
> + */
> +struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device(swp_entry_t entry)
> +{
> + struct swap_info_struct *si;
> + unsigned long type, offset;
> +
> + if (!entry.val)
> + goto out;
> + type = swp_type(entry);
> + if (type >= nr_swapfiles)
> + goto bad_nofile;
> + si = swap_info[type];
> +
> + preempt_disable();
This preempt_disable() is later than I'd expect. If a well-timed race
occurs, `si' could now be pointing at a defunct entry. If that
well-timed race include a swapoff AND a swapon, `si' could be pointing
at the info for a new device?
> + if (!(si->flags & SWP_VALID))
> + goto unlock_out;
> + offset = swp_offset(entry);
> + if (offset >= si->max)
> + goto unlock_out;
> +
> + return si;
> +bad_nofile:
> + pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_file, entry.val);
> +out:
> + return NULL;
> +unlock_out:
> + preempt_enable();
> + return NULL;
> +}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
