From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S272059AbRIMU7f>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:59:35 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S272062AbRIMU71>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:59:27 -0400
Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:46085 "HELO
	perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id <S272059AbRIMU7K>; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:59:10 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:34:32 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4.10pre VM changes: Potential race condition on swap code
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0109130806260.2144-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0109131633380.3580-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > It may be made more likely by my swapoff changes (not bumping swap
> > > count in valid_swaphandles), but it's not been introduced by those
> > > changes.  Though usually swapin_readahead/valid_swaphandles covers
> > > (includes) the particular swap entry which do_swap_page actually
> > > wants to bring in, under pressure that's not always so, and then
> > > the race you outline can occur with the "bare" read_swap_cache_async
> > > for which there was no bumping.  Furthermore, you can play your
> > > scenario with valid_swaphandles through to add_to_swap_cache on CPU0
> > > interposed between the get_swap_page and add_to_swap_cache on CPU1
> > > (if interrupt on CPU1 diverts it).
> > 
> > I don't think so. A "bare" read_swap_cache_async() call only happens on
> > swap entries which already have additional references. That is, its
> > guaranteed that a "bare" read_swap_cache_async() call only happens for
> > swap map entries which already have a reference, so we're guaranteed that
> > it cannot be reused.
> 
> Almost agreed, but there may be a long interval between when that reference
> was observed in the page table, and when read_swap_cache_async upon it is
> actually performed (waiting for BKL, waiting to allocate pages for prior
> swapin_readahead).  In that interval the reference can be removed:
> certainly by swapoff, certainly by vm_swap_full removal, anything else?

Not sure about swapoff(). 

vm_swap_full() is only going to remove the reference _after_ we did the
swapin, so I don't see how the race can happen with it.

> That's why the pte_same tests were added into do_swap_page in 2.4.8.