Re: [PATCH -mm] mm, swap: Fix race between swapoff and some swap operations

["Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:41:10PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 04:29:37PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >> On Thu,  7 Dec 2017 09:14:26 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > When the swapin is performed, after getting the swap entry information
>> >> > from the page table, the PTL (page table lock) will be released, then
>> >> > system will go to swap in the swap entry, without any lock held to
>> >> > prevent the swap device from being swapoff.  This may cause the race
>> >> > like below,
>> >> > 
>> >> > CPU 1				CPU 2
>> >> > -----				-----
>> >> > 				do_swap_page
>> >> > 				  swapin_readahead
>> >> > 				    __read_swap_cache_async
>> >> > swapoff				      swapcache_prepare
>> >> >   p->swap_map = NULL		        __swap_duplicate
>> >> > 					  p->swap_map[?] /* !!! NULL pointer access */
>> >> > 
>> >> > Because swap off is usually done when system shutdown only, the race
>> >> > may not hit many people in practice.  But it is still a race need to
>> >> > be fixed.
>> >> 
>> >> swapoff is so rare that it's hard to get motivated about any fix which
>> >> adds overhead to the regular codepaths.
>> >
>> > That was my concern, too when I see this patch.
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Is there something we can do to ensure that all the overhead of this
>> >> fix is placed into the swapoff side?  stop_machine() may be a bit
>> >> brutal, but a surprising amount of code uses it.  Any other ideas?
>> >
>> > How about this?
>> >
>> > I think It's same approach with old where we uses si->lock everywhere
>> > instead of more fine-grained cluster lock.
>> >
>> > The reason I repeated to reset p->max to zero in the loop is to avoid
>> > using lockdep annotation(maybe, spin_lock_nested(something) to prevent
>> > false positive.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
>> > index 42fe5653814a..9ce007a42bbc 100644
>> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
>> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
>> > @@ -2644,6 +2644,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, specialfile)
>> >  	swap_file = p->swap_file;
>> >  	old_block_size = p->old_block_size;
>> >  	p->swap_file = NULL;
>> > +
>> > +	if (p->flags & SWP_SOLIDSTATE) {
>> > +		unsigned long ci, nr_cluster;
>> > +
>> > +		nr_cluster = DIV_ROUND_UP(p->max, SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
>> > +		for (ci = 0; ci < nr_cluster; ci++) {
>> > +			struct swap_cluster_info *sci;
>> > +
>> > +			sci = lock_cluster(p, ci * SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
>> > +			p->max = 0;
>> > +			unlock_cluster(sci);
>> > +		}
>> > +	}
>> >  	p->max = 0;
>> >  	swap_map = p->swap_map;
>> >  	p->swap_map = NULL;
>> > @@ -3369,10 +3382,10 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t entry, unsigned char usage)
>> >  		goto bad_file;
>> >  	p = swap_info[type];
>> >  	offset = swp_offset(entry);
>> > -	if (unlikely(offset >= p->max))
>> > -		goto out;
>> >  
>> >  	ci = lock_cluster_or_swap_info(p, offset);
>> > +	if (unlikely(offset >= p->max))
>> > +		goto unlock_out;
>> >  
>> >  	count = p->swap_map[offset];
>> >  
>> 
>> Sorry, this doesn't work, because
>> 
>> lock_cluster_or_swap_info()
>> 
>> Need to read p->cluster_info, which may be freed during swapoff too.
>> 
>> 
>> To reduce the added overhead in regular code path, Maybe we can use SRCU
>> to implement get_swap_device() and put_swap_device()?  There is only
>> increment/decrement on CPU local variable in srcu_read_lock/unlock().
>> Should be acceptable in not so hot swap path?
>> 
>> This needs to select CONFIG_SRCU if CONFIG_SWAP is enabled.  But I guess
>> that should be acceptable too?
>> 
>
> Why do we need srcu here? Is it enough with rcu like below?
>
> It might have a bug/room to be optimized about performance/naming.
> I just wanted to show my intention.

Yes.  rcu should work too.  But if we use rcu, it may need to be called
several times to make sure the swap device under us doesn't go away, for
example, when checking si->max in __swp_swapcount() and
add_swap_count_continuation().  And I found we need rcu to protect swap
cache radix tree array too.  So I think it may be better to use one
calling to srcu_read_lock/unlock() instead of multiple callings to
rcu_read_lock/unlock().

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying