On 2021/4/12 9:44, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Miaohe Lin <linmia...@huawei.com> writes:
>
>> On 2021/4/10 1:17, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/9/21 1:42 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> On 2021/4/9 5:34, Tim Chen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/8/21 6:08 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>>> When I was investigating the swap code, I found the below possible race
>>>>>> window:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CPU 1 CPU 2
>>>>>> ----- -----
>>>>>> do_swap_page
>>>>>> synchronous swap_readpage
>>>>>> alloc_page_vma
>>>>>> swapoff
>>>>>> release swap_file, bdev, or ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for quick review and reply!
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I'm missing something. The release of swap_file, bdev etc
>>>>> happens after we have cleared the SWP_VALID bit in si->flags in
>>>>> destroy_swap_extents
>>>>> if I read the swapoff code correctly.
>>>> Agree. Let's look this more close:
>>>> CPU1 CPU2
>>>> ----- -----
>>>> swap_readpage
>>>> if (data_race(sis->flags & SWP_FS_OPS)) {
>>>> swapoff
>>>> p->swap_file
>>>> = NULL;
>>>> struct file *swap_file = sis->swap_file;
>>>> struct address_space *mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;[oops!]
>>>> ...
>>>> p->flags = 0;
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense for you?
>>>
>>> p->swapfile = NULL happens after the
>>> p->flags &= ~SWP_VALID, synchronize_rcu(), destroy_swap_extents() sequence
>>> in swapoff().
>>>
>>> So I don't think the sequence you illustrated on CPU2 is in the right order.
>>> That said, without get_swap_device/put_swap_device in swap_readpage, you
>>> could
>>> potentially blow pass synchronize_rcu() on CPU2 and causes a problem. so I
>>> think
>>> the problematic race looks something like the following:
>>>
>>>
>>> CPU1 CPU2
>>> ----- -----
>>> swap_readpage
>>> if (data_race(sis->flags & SWP_FS_OPS)) {
>>> swapoff
>>> p->flags = &=
>>> ~SWP_VALID;
>>> ..
>>>
>>> synchronize_rcu();
>>> ..
>>> p->swap_file
>>> = NULL;
>>> struct file *swap_file = sis->swap_file;
>>> struct address_space *mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;[oops!]
>>> ...
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> Agree. This is also what I meant to illustrate. And you provide a better
>> one. Many thanks!
>
> For the pages that are swapped in through swap cache. That isn't an
> issue. Because the page is locked, the swap entry will be marked with
> SWAP_HAS_CACHE, so swapoff() cannot proceed until the page has been
> unlocked.
>
> So the race is for the fast path as follows,
>
> if (data_race(si->flags & SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO) &&
> __swap_count(entry) == 1)
>
> I found it in your original patch description. But please make it more
> explicit to reduce the potential confusing.
Sure. Should I rephrase the commit log to clarify this or add a comment in the
code?
Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
> .
>
