On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 02:38:04PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi Jan, > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57:35AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > >> Hi Minchan, > >> > >> On Sun 18-02-18 18:22:45, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:12:27PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> > > From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > > >> > > When page_mapping() is called and the mapping is dereferenced in > >> > > page_evicatable() through shrink_active_list(), it is possible for the > >> > > inode to be truncated and the embedded address space to be freed at > >> > > the same time. This may lead to the following race. > >> > > > >> > > CPU1 CPU2 > >> > > > >> > > truncate(inode) shrink_active_list() > >> > > ... page_evictable(page) > >> > > truncate_inode_page(mapping, page); > >> > > delete_from_page_cache(page) > >> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags); > >> > > __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL) > >> > > page_cache_tree_delete(..) > >> > > ... mapping = page_mapping(page); > >> > > page->mapping = NULL; > >> > > ... > >> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags); > >> > > page_cache_free_page(mapping, page) > >> > > put_page(page) > >> > > if (put_page_testzero(page)) -> false > >> > > - inode now has no pages and can be freed including embedded address_space > >> > > > >> > > mapping_unevictable(mapping) > >> > > test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE, &mapping->flags); > >> > > - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free. > >> > > > >> > > Similar race exists between swap cache freeing and page_evicatable() too. > >> > > > >> > > The address_space in inode and swap cache will be freed after a RCU > >> > > grace period. So the races are fixed via enclosing the page_mapping() > >> > > and address_space usage in rcu_read_lock/unlock(). Some comments are > >> > > added in code to make it clear what is protected by the RCU read lock. > >> > > >> > Is it always true for every FSes, even upcoming FSes? > >> > IOW, do we have any strict rule FS folks must use RCU(i.e., call_rcu) > >> > to destroy inode? > >> > > >> > Let's cc linux-fs. > >> > >> That's actually a good question. Pathname lookup relies on inodes being > >> protected by RCU so "normal" filesystems definitely need to use RCU freeing > >> of inodes. OTOH a filesystem could in theory refuse any attempt for RCU > >> pathname walk (in its .d_revalidate/.d_compare callback) and then get away > >> with freeing its inodes normally AFAICT. I don't see that happening > >> anywhere in the tree but in theory it is possible with some effort... But > >> frankly I don't see a good reason for that so all we should do is to > >> document that .destroy_inode needs to free the inode structure through RCU > >> if it uses page cache? Al? > > > > Yub, it would be much better. However, how does this patch fix the problem? > > Although it can make only page_evictable safe, we could go with the page > > further and finally uses page->mapping, again. > > For instance, > > > > shrink_active_list > > page_evictable(); > > .. > > page_referened() > > page_rmapping > > page->mapping > > This only checks the value of page->mapping, not deference > page->mapping. So it should be safe. Oops, you're right. I got confused. However, I want to make the lock consistent(i.e., use page_lock to protect address_space) but cannot come with better way. Sorry for the noise, Huang. > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > > I think caller should lock the page to protect entire operation, which > > have been used more widely to pin a address_space. > > > > Thanks. -- 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>
