On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:38 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:38:00 +0800 "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> struct swap_info_struct pointed to by swap_info[] will never be freed.
>> During swapoff, we only free the memory pointed to by the fields of
>> struct swap_info_struct. And when swapon, we will always reuse
>> swap_info[type] if it's not NULL. So it should be safe to dereference
>> swap_info[type] with preemption enabled.
>
> That's my point. If there's a race window during which there is a
> parallel swapoff+swapon, this swap_info_struct may now be in use for a
> different device?
Yes. It's possible. And the caller of get_swap_device() can live
with it if the swap_info_struct has been fully initialized. For
example, for the race in the patch description,
do_swap_page
swapin_readahead
__read_swap_cache_async
swapcache_prepare
__swap_duplicate
in __swap_duplicate(), it's possible that the swap device returned by
get_swap_device() is different from the swap device when
__swap_duplicate() call get_swap_device(). But the struct_info_struct
has been fully initialized, so __swap_duplicate() can reference
si->swap_map[] safely. And we will check si->swap_map[] before any
further operation. Even if the swap entry is swapped out again for
the new swap device, we will check the page table again in
do_swap_page(). So there is no functionality problem.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
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>
