On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 11:12 AM Sridhar, Kanchana P
<kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yosry,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 10:22 PM
> > To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx;
> > hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx; nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx; chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx;
> > usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx; ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx; Huang, Ying
> > <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>; 21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx; akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Feghali, Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@xxxxxxxxx>; Gopal, Vinodh
> > <vinodh.gopal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: zswap: Fix a potential memory leak in
> > zswap_decompress().
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:59 PM Sridhar, Kanchana P
> > <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:35 PM
> > > > To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx;
> > > > hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx; nphamcs@xxxxxxxxx;
> > chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx;
> > > > usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx; ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx; Huang, Ying
> > > > <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>; 21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx; akpm@linux-
> > foundation.org;
> > > > Feghali, Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@xxxxxxxxx>; Gopal, Vinodh
> > > > <vinodh.gopal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: zswap: Fix a potential memory leak in
> > > > zswap_decompress().
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 9:24 PM Kanchana P Sridhar
> > > > <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a hotfix for a potential zpool memory leak that could result in
> > > > > the existing zswap_decompress():
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (src != acomp_ctx->buffer)
> > > > > zpool_unmap_handle(zpool, entry->handle);
> > > > >
> > > > > Releasing the lock before the conditional does not protect the integrity
> > of
> > > > > "src", which is set earlier under the acomp_ctx mutex lock. This poses a
> > > > > risk for the conditional behaving as intended, and consequently not
> > > > > unmapping the zpool handle, which could cause a zswap zpool memory
> > > > leak.
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch moves the mutex_unlock() to occur after the conditional and
> > > > > subsequent zpool_unmap_handle(). This ensures that the value of "src"
> > > > > obtained earlier, with the mutex locked, does not change.
> > > >
> > > > The commit log is too complicated and incorrect. It is talking about
> > > > the stability of 'src', but that's a local variable on the stack
> > > > anyway. It doesn't need protection.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is 'acomp_ctx->buffer' being reused and changed after the
> > > > mutex is released. Leading to the check not being reliable. Please
> > > > simplify this.
> > >
> > > Thanks Yosry. That's exactly what I meant, but I think the wording got
> > > confusing. The problem I was trying to fix is the acomp_ctx->buffer
> > > value changing after the lock is released. This could happen as a result of
> > any
> > > other compress or decompress that acquires the lock. I will simplify and
> > > clarify accordingly.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Even though an actual memory leak was not observed, this fix seems
> > like a
> > > > > cleaner implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kanchana P Sridhar <kanchana.p.sridhar@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Fixes: 9c500835f279 ("mm: zswap: fix kernel BUG in sg_init_one")
> > > > > ---
> > > > > mm/zswap.c | 3 ++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> > > > > index f6316b66fb23..58810fa8ff23 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/zswap.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> > > > > @@ -986,10 +986,11 @@ static void zswap_decompress(struct
> > > > zswap_entry *entry, struct folio *folio)
> > > > > acomp_request_set_params(acomp_ctx->req, &input, &output,
> > entry-
> > > > >length, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > BUG_ON(crypto_wait_req(crypto_acomp_decompress(acomp_ctx-
> > > > >req), &acomp_ctx->wait));
> > > > > BUG_ON(acomp_ctx->req->dlen != PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > - mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (src != acomp_ctx->buffer)
> > > > > zpool_unmap_handle(zpool, entry->handle);
> > > >
> > > > Actually now that I think more about it, I think this check isn't
> > > > entirely safe, even under the lock. Is it possible that
> > > > 'acomp_ctx->buffer' just happens to be equal to 'src' from a previous
> > > > decompression at the same handle? In this case, we will also
> > > > mistakenly skip the unmap.
> > >
> > > If we move the mutex_unlock to happen after the conditional and unmap,
> > > shouldn't that be sufficient under all conditions? With the fix, "src" can
> > > take on only 2 values in this procedure: the mapped handle or
> > > acomp_ctx->buffer. The only ambiguity would be in the (unlikely?) case
> > > if the mapped zpool handle happens to be equal to acomp_ctx->buffer.
> >
> > Yes, that's the scenario I mean.
> >
> > Specifically, in zswap_decompress(), we do not use 'acomp_ctx->buffer'
> > so 'src' is equal to the mapped handle. But, 'acomp_ctx->buffer'
> > happens to be equal to the same handle from a previous operation as we
> > don't clear it.
>
> Although, we never modify 'acomp_ctx->buffer' in zswap_decompress(),
> we only copy to it.
Duh, yes. I confused myself, sorry for the noise.
>
> >
> > In this case, the 'src != acomp_ctx->buffer' check will be false, even
> > though it should be true. This will result in an extra
> > zpool_unmap_handle() call. I didn't look closely, but this seems like
> > it can have a worse effect than leaking memory (e.g. there will be an
> > extra __kunmap_atomic() call in zsmalloc, and we may end up corrupting
> > a random handle).
> >
> > >
> > > Please let me know if I am missing anything.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It would be more reliable to set a boolean variable if we copy to
> > > > acomp_ctx->buffer and do the unmap, and check that flag here to check
> > > > if the unmap was done or not.
> > >
> > > Sure, this could be done, but not sure if it is required. Please let me know
> > > if we still need the boolean variable in addition to moving the
> > mutex_unlock().
> >
> > If we use a boolean, there is no need to move mutex_unlock(). The
> > boolean will be a local variable on the stack that doesn't need
> > protection.
>
> I agree, using the boolean variable to do the unmap rather than the check
> for (src != acomp_ctx->buffer) is more fail-safe.
>
> I am still thinking moving the mutex_unlock() could help, or at least have
> no downside. The acomp_ctx is per-cpu and it's mutex_lock/unlock
> safeguards the interaction between the decompress operation, the
> sg_*() API calls inside zswap_decompress() and the shared zpool.
>
> If we release the per-cpu acomp_ctx's mutex lock before the
> zpool_unmap_handle(), is it possible that another cpu could acquire
> it's acomp_ctx's lock and map the same zpool handle (that the earlier
> cpu has yet to unmap or is concurrently unmapping) for a write?
> If this could happen, would it result in undefined state for both
> these zpool ops on different cpu's?
Why would this result in an undefined state? For zsmalloc, mapping
uses a per-CPU buffer and preemption is disabled between mapping and
unmapping anyway. If another CPU maps the object it should be fine.
>
> Would keeping the per-cpu mutex locked through the
> zpool_unmap_handle() create a non-preemptible state that would
> avoid this? IOW, if the above scenario is possible, does the per-cpu
> acomp_ctx's mutex help/is a no-op? Or, is the above scenario somehow
> prevented by the implementation of the zpools?
At least for zsmalloc, I think it is.
>
> Just thought I would bring up these open questions. Please do share
> your thoughts and advise.
I think moving the mutex unlock after the unmap won't make much of a
difference from a performance side, at least for zsmalloc. Preemption
will be disabled until the unmap is done anyway, so even after we
release the per-CPU mutex it cannot be acquired by anyone else until
the unmap is done.
Anyway, I think the fix you have right now is fine, if you prefer not
adding a boolean. If you do add a boolean, whether you move the mutex
unlock or not should not make a difference.
Please just rewrite the commit log and CC stable (in the commit log,
not in the email CC list).
Thanks and sorry for the confusion!
>
> Thanks,
> Kanchana
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kanchana
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&acomp_ctx->mutex);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > /*********************************
> > > > >
> > > > > base-commit: 0e5bdedb39ded767bff4c6184225578595cee98c
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.27.0
> > > > >
