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!]
...
...
By adding get_swap_device/put_swap_device, then the race is fixed.
CPU1 CPU2
----- -----
swap_readpage
get_swap_device()
..
if (data_race(sis->flags & SWP_FS_OPS)) {
swapoff
p->flags = &=
~SWP_VALID;
..
struct file *swap_file = sis->swap_file;
struct address_space *mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;[valid value]
..
put_swap_device()
synchronize_rcu();
..
p->swap_file
= NULL;
>
>>>
>>> swap_readpage
>>> check sis->flags is ok
>>> access swap_file, bdev...[oops!]
>>> si->flags = 0
>>
>> This happens after we clear the si->flags
>> synchronize_rcu()
>> release swap_file, bdev, in
>> destroy_swap_extents()
>>
>> So I think if we have get_swap_device/put_swap_device in do_swap_page,
>> it should fix the race you've pointed out here.
>> Then synchronize_rcu() will wait till we have completed do_swap_page and
>> call put_swap_device.
>
> Right, get_swap_device/put_swap_device could fix this race. __But__
> rcu_read_lock()
> in get_swap_device() could disable preempt and do_swap_page() may take a
> really long
> time because it involves I/O. It may not be acceptable to disable preempt for
> such a
> long time. :(
I can see that it is not a good idea to hold rcu read lock for a long
time over slow file I/O operation, which will be the side effect of
introducing get/put_swap_device to swap_readpage. So using percpu_ref
will then be preferable for synchronization once we introduce
get/put_swap_device into swap_readpage.
Tim
