On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:35 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 8:04 PM Zhongkun He
> <hezhongkun.hzk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:29 PM Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2024/3/21 14:36, Zhongkun He wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:24 PM Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2024/3/21 13:09, Zhongkun He wrote:
> > > >>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:42 PM Chengming Zhou
> > > >>> <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 2024/3/21 12:34, Zhongkun He wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hey folks,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Recently, I tested the zswap with memory reclaiming in the mainline
> > > >>>>> (6.8) and found a memory corruption issue related to exclusive loads.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Is this fix included? 13ddaf26be32 ("mm/swap: fix race when skipping swapcache")
> > > >>>> This fix avoids concurrent swapin using the same swap entry.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, This fix avoids concurrent swapin from different cpu, but the
> > > >>> reported issue occurs
> > > >>> on the same cpu.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think you may misunderstand the race description in this fix changelog,
> > > >> the CPU0 and CPU1 just mean two concurrent threads, not real two CPUs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Could you verify if the problem still exists with this fix?
> > > >
> > > > Yes，I'm sure the problem still exists with this patch.
> > > > There is some debug info, not mainline.
> > > >
> > > > bpftrace -e'k:swap_readpage {printf("%lld, %lld,%ld,%ld,%ld\n%s",
> > > > ((struct page *)arg0)->private,nsecs,tid,pid,cpu,kstack)}' --include
> > > > linux/mm_types.h
> > >
> > > Ok, this problem seems only happen on SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO swap backends,
> > > which now include zram, ramdisk, pmem, nvdimm.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >
> > > It maybe not good to use zswap on these swap backends?
> > >
> > > The problem here is the page fault handler tries to skip swapcache to
> > > swapin the folio (swap entry count == 1), but then it can't install folio
> > > to pte entry since some changes happened such as concurrent fork of entry.
> > >
> >
> > The first page fault returned VM_FAULT_RETRY because
> > folio_lock_or_retry() failed.
>
Hi Yosry,
> How so? The folio is newly allocated and not visible to any other
> threads or CPUs. swap_read_folio() unlocks it and then returns and we
> immediately try to lock it again with folio_lock_or_retry(). How does
> this fail?
Haha, it makes me very confused. Based on the steps to reproduce the problem,
I think the page is locked by shrink_folio_list(). Please see the
following situation.
do_swap_page
__folio_set_locked(folio);
swap_readpage(page, true, NULL);
zswap_load(folio)
folio_unlock(folio);
shrink_folio_list
if (!folio_trylock(folio))
ret |= folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vmf);
if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY)
goto out_release;
Thanks.
>
> Let's go over what happens after swap_read_folio():
> - The 'if (!folio)' code block will be skipped.
> - folio_lock_or_retry() should succeed as I mentioned earlier.
> - The 'if (swapcache)' code block will be skipped.
> - The pte_same() check should succeed on first look because other
> concurrent faulting threads should be held off by the newly introduced
> swapcache_prepare() logic. But looking deeper I think this one may
> fail due to a concurrent MADV_WILLNEED.
> - The 'if (unlikely(!folio_test_uptodate(folio)))` part will be
> skipped because swap_read_folio() marks the folio up-to-date.
> - After that point there is no possible failure until we install the
> pte, at which point concurrent faults will fail on !pte_same() and
> retry.
>
> So the only failure I think is possible is the pte_same() check. I see
> how a concurrent MADV_WILLNEED could cause that check to fail. A
> concurrent MADV_WILLNEED will block on swapcache_prepare(), but once
> the fault resolves it will go ahead and read the folio again into the
> swapcache. It seems like we will end up with two copies of the same
> folio? Maybe this is harmless because the folio in the swacache will
> never be used, but it is essentially leaked at that point, right?
>
> I feel like I am missing something. Adding other folks that were
> involved in the recent swapcache_prepare() synchronization thread.
>
> Anyway, I agree that at least in theory the data corruption could
> happen because of exclusive loads when skipping the swapcache, and we
> should fix that.
>
> Perhaps the right thing to do may be to write the folio again to zswap
> before unlocking it and before calling swapcache_clear(). The need for
> the write can be detected by checking if the folio is dirty, I think
> this will only be true if the folio was loaded from zswap.
