On 08/20/2013 11:22 PM, Weijie Yang wrote:
> 2013/8/19 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:17:38AM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
>>> Hi Weijie,
>>>
>>> On 08/19/2013 12:14 AM, Weijie Yang wrote:
>>>> I found a few bugs in zswap when I review Linux-3.11-rc5, and I have
>>>> also some questions about it, described as following:
>>>>
>>>> BUG:
>>>> 1. A race condition when reclaim a page
>>>> when a handle alloced from zbud, zbud considers this handle is used
>>>> validly by upper(zswap) and can be a candidate for reclaim.
>>>> But zswap has to initialize it such as setting swapentry and addding
>>>> it to rbtree. so there is a race condition, such as:
>>>> thread 0: obtain handle x from zbud_alloc
>>>> thread 1: zbud_reclaim_page is called
>>>> thread 1: callback zswap_writeback_entry to reclaim handle x
>>>> thread 1: get swpentry from handle x (it is random value now)
>>>> thread 1: bad thing may happen
>>>> thread 0: initialize handle x with swapentry
>>
>> Nice catch!
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, this may happen potentially but in rare case.
>>> Because we have a LRU list for page frames, after Thread 0 called
>>> zbud_alloc the corresponding page will be add to the head of LRU
>>> list,While zbud_reclaim_page(Thread 1 called) is started from the tail
>>> of LRU list.
>>>
>>>> Of course, this situation almost never happen, it is a "theoretical
>>>> race condition" issue.
>>
>> But it's doable and we should prevent that although you feel it's rare
>> because system could go hang. When I look at the code, Why should zbud
>> have LRU logic instead of zswap? If I missed some history, sorry about that.
>> But at least to me, zbud is just allocator so it should have a role
>> to handle alloc/free object and how client of the allocator uses objects
>> depends on the upper layer so zbud should handle LRU. If so, we wouldn't
>> encounter this problem, either.
>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Pollute swapcache data by add a pre-invalided swap page
>>>> when a swap_entry is invalidated, it will be reused by other anon
>>>> page. At the same time, zswap is reclaiming old page, pollute
>>>> swapcache of new page as a result, because old page and new page use
>>>> the same swap_entry, such as:
>>>> thread 1: zswap reclaim entry x
>>>> thread 0: zswap_frontswap_invalidate_page entry x
>>>> thread 0: entry x reused by other anon page
>>>> thread 1: add old data to swapcache of entry x
>>>
>>> I didn't get your idea here, why thread1 will add old data to entry x?
>>>
>>>> thread 0: swapcache of entry x is polluted
>>>> Of course, this situation almost never happen, it is another
>>>> "theoretical race condition" issue.
>>
>> Don't swapcache_prepare close the race?
>>
>
> Yes, I made a mistake, there is not a race here.
> However, I find another bug here after my more careful review. It is
> not only "theoretical", it will happen really. as:
> thread 1: zswap reclaim entry x (get the refcount, but not call
> zswap_get_swap_cache_page yet)
> thread 0: zswap_frontswap_invalidate_page entry x (finished, entry x
> and its zbud is not freed as its refcount != 0)
> now, the swap_map[x] = 0
> thread 1: zswap_get_swap_cache_page called, swapcache_prepare return
> -ENOENT because entry x is not used any more
> zswap_get_swap_cache_page return ZSWAP_SWAPCACHE_NOMEM
> zswap_writeback_entry do nothing except put refcount
> now, the memory of zswap_entry x leaks and its zpage become a zombie
>
Nice catch!
How about fix like this?
@@ -612,7 +612,10 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zbud_pool
*pool, unsigned long handle)
fail:
spin_lock(&tree->lock);
- zswap_entry_put(entry);
+ refcount = zswap_entry_put(entry);
+ if (refcount <= 0)
+ /* invalidate happened */
+ zswap_free_entry(tree, entry);
spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
return ret;
--
Regards,
-Bob
--
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>