On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:11:55 +0200 Jerome Marchand <jmarc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Since commit 62c230b, swap_writepage() calls direct_IO on swap files.
> However, in that case page isn't redirtied if I/O fails, and is therefore
> handled afterwards as if it has been successfully written to the swap
> file, leading to memory corruption when the page is eventually swapped
> back in.
> This patch sets the page dirty when direct_IO() fails. It fixes a memory
> corruption that happened while using swap-over-NFS.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/page_io.c
> +++ b/mm/page_io.c
> @@ -222,6 +222,8 @@ int swap_writepage(struct page *page, struct
> writeback_control *wbc)
> if (ret == PAGE_SIZE) {
> count_vm_event(PSWPOUT);
> ret = 0;
> + } else {
> + set_page_dirty(page);
> }
> return ret;
> }
So what happens to the page now? It remains dirty and the kernel later
tries to write it again? And if that write also fails, the page is
effectively leaked until process exit?
Aside: Mel, __swap_writepage() is fairly hair-raising. It unlocks the
page before doing the IO and doesn't set PageWriteback(). Why such an
exception from normal handling?
Also, what is protecting the page from concurrent reclaim or exit()
during the above swap_writepage()?
Seems that the code needs a bunch of fixes or a bunch of comments
explaining why it is safe and why it has to be this way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
