The patch titled
Subject: mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff()
has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is
mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
Subject: mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff()
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:13:49 +0000
There was previously a theoretical window where swapoff() could run and
teardown a swap_info_struct while a call to free_swap_and_cache() was
running in another thread. This could cause, amongst other bad
possibilities, swap_page_trans_huge_swapped() (called by
free_swap_and_cache()) to access the freed memory for swap_map.
This is a theoretical problem and I haven't been able to provoke it from a
test case. But there has been agreement based on code review that this is
possible (see link below).
Fix it by using get_swap_device()/put_swap_device(), which will stall
swapoff(). There was an extra check in _swap_info_get() to confirm that
the swap entry was valid. This wasn't present in get_swap_device() so
I've added it. I couldn't find any existing get_swap_device() call sites
where this extra check would cause any false alarms.
Details of how to provoke one possible issue (thanks to David Hildenbrand
for deriving this):
--8<-----
__swap_entry_free() might be the last user and result in
"count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE".
swapoff->try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as soon as si->inuse_pages==0.
So the question is: could someone reclaim the folio and turn
si->inuse_pages==0, before we completed swap_page_trans_huge_swapped().
Imagine the following: 2 MiB folio in the swapcache. Only 2 subpages are
still references by swap entries.
Process 1 still references subpage 0 via swap entry.
Process 2 still references subpage 1 via swap entry.
Process 1 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
-> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
[then, preempted in the hypervisor etc.]
Process 2 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache().
-> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE
Process 2 goes ahead, passes swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(), and calls
__try_to_reclaim_swap().
__try_to_reclaim_swap()->folio_free_swap()->delete_from_swap_cache()->
put_swap_folio()->free_swap_slot()->swapcache_free_entries()->
swap_entry_free()->swap_range_free()->
...
WRITE_ONCE(si->inuse_pages, si->inuse_pages - nr_entries);
What stops swapoff to succeed after process 2 reclaimed the swap cache
but before process1 finished its call to swap_page_trans_huge_swapped()?
--8<-----
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240305151349.3781428-1-ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx
Fixes: 7c00bafee87c ("mm/swap: free swap slots in batch")
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/65a66eb9-41f8-4790-8db2-0c70ea15979f@xxxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/swapfile.c | 14 +++++++++++---
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/swapfile.c~mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff
+++ a/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -1281,7 +1281,9 @@ struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device
smp_rmb();
offset = swp_offset(entry);
if (offset >= si->max)
- goto put_out;
+ goto bad_offset;
+ if (data_race(!si->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)]))
+ goto bad_free;
return si;
bad_nofile:
@@ -1289,9 +1291,14 @@ bad_nofile:
out:
return NULL;
put_out:
- pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_offset, entry.val);
percpu_ref_put(&si->users);
return NULL;
+bad_offset:
+ pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_offset, entry.val);
+ goto put_out;
+bad_free:
+ pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Unused_offset, entry.val);
+ goto put_out;
}
static unsigned char __swap_entry_free(struct swap_info_struct *p,
@@ -1609,13 +1616,14 @@ int free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entr
if (non_swap_entry(entry))
return 1;
- p = _swap_info_get(entry);
+ p = get_swap_device(entry);
if (p) {
count = __swap_entry_free(p, entry);
if (count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE &&
!swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(p, entry))
__try_to_reclaim_swap(p, swp_offset(entry),
TTRS_UNMAPPED | TTRS_FULL);
+ put_swap_device(p);
}
return p != NULL;
}
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx are
mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff.patch
