Re: [PATCH v2] mm/swap: fix race when skipping swapcache

[Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 02:25:59AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> 
> When skipping swapcache for SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO, if two or more threads
> swapin the same entry at the same time, they get different pages (A, B).
> Before one thread (T0) finishes the swapin and installs page (A)
> to the PTE, another thread (T1) could finish swapin of page (B),
> swap_free the entry, then swap out the possibly modified page
> reusing the same entry. It breaks the pte_same check in (T0) because
> PTE value is unchanged, causing ABA problem. Thread (T0) will
> install a stalled page (A) into the PTE and cause data corruption.
> 
> One possible callstack is like this:
> 
> CPU0                                 CPU1
> ----                                 ----
> do_swap_page()                       do_swap_page() with same entry
> <direct swapin path>                 <direct swapin path>
> <alloc page A>                       <alloc page B>
> swap_read_folio() <- read to page A  swap_read_folio() <- read to page B
> <slow on later locks or interrupt>   <finished swapin first>
> ...                                  set_pte_at()
>                                      swap_free() <- entry is free

                                       ^^^
nit: From the recent code, I see swap_free is called earlier than set_pte_at


>                                      <write to page B, now page A stalled>
>                                      <swap out page B to same swap entry>
> pte_same() <- Check pass, PTE seems
>               unchanged, but page A
>               is stalled!
> swap_free() <- page B content lost!
> set_pte_at() <- staled page A installed!
> 
> And besides, for ZRAM, swap_free() allows the swap device to discard
> the entry content, so even if page (B) is not modified, if
> swap_read_folio() on CPU0 happens later than swap_free() on CPU1,
> it may also cause data loss.

Thanks for catching the issue, folks!

> 
> To fix this, reuse swapcache_prepare which will pin the swap entry using
> the cache flag, and allow only one thread to pin it. Release the pin
> after PT unlocked. Racers will simply busy wait since it's a rare
> and very short event.
> 
> Other methods like increasing the swap count don't seem to be a good
> idea after some tests, that will cause racers to fall back to use the
> swap cache again. Parallel swapin using different methods leads to
> a much more complex scenario.
> 
> Reproducer:
> 
> This race issue can be triggered easily using a well constructed
> reproducer and patched brd (with a delay in read path) [1]:
> 
> With latest 6.8 mainline, race caused data loss can be observed easily:
> $ gcc -g -lpthread test-thread-swap-race.c && ./a.out
>   Polulating 32MB of memory region...
>   Keep swapping out...
>   Starting round 0...
>   Spawning 65536 workers...
>   32746 workers spawned, wait for done...
>   Round 0: Error on 0x5aa00, expected 32746, got 32743, 3 data loss!
>   Round 0: Error on 0x395200, expected 32746, got 32743, 3 data loss!
>   Round 0: Error on 0x3fd000, expected 32746, got 32737, 9 data loss!
>   Round 0 Failed, 15 data loss!
> 
> This reproducer spawns multiple threads sharing the same memory region
> using a small swap device. Every two threads updates mapped pages one by
> one in opposite direction trying to create a race, with one dedicated
> thread keep swapping out the data out using madvise.
> 
> The reproducer created a reproduce rate of about once every 5 minutes,
> so the race should be totally possible in production.
> 
> After this patch, I ran the reproducer for over a few hundred rounds
> and no data loss observed.
> 
> Performance overhead is minimal, microbenchmark swapin 10G from 32G
> zram:
> 
> Before:     10934698 us
> After:      11157121 us
> Non-direct: 13155355 us (Dropping SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO flag)
> 
> Fixes: 0bcac06f27d7 ("mm, swap: skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device")
> Reported-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87bk92gqpx.fsf_-_@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/
> Link: https://github.com/ryncsn/emm-test-project/tree/master/swap-stress-race [1]
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
> 
> ---
> Update from V1:
> - Add some words on ZRAM case, it will discard swap content on swap_free so the race window is a bit different but cure is the same. [Barry Song]
> - Update comments make it cleaner [Huang, Ying]
> - Add a function place holder to fix CONFIG_SWAP=n built [SeongJae Park]
> - Update the commit message and summary, refer to SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO instead of "direct swapin path" [Yu Zhao]
> - Update commit message.
> - Collect Review and Acks.
> 
>  include/linux/swap.h |  5 +++++
>  mm/memory.c          | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  mm/swap.h            |  5 +++++
>  mm/swapfile.c        | 13 +++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index 4db00ddad261..8d28f6091a32 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -549,6 +549,11 @@ static inline int swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t swp)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int swapcache_prepare(swp_entry_t swp)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void swap_free(swp_entry_t swp)
>  {
>  }
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 7e1f4849463a..1749c700823d 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -3867,6 +3867,16 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  	if (!folio) {
>  		if (data_race(si->flags & SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO) &&
>  		    __swap_count(entry) == 1) {
> +			/*
> +			 * Prevent parallel swapin from proceeding with
> +			 * the cache flag. Otherwise, another thread may
> +			 * finish swapin first, free the entry, and swapout
> +			 * reusing the same entry. It's undetectable as
> +			 * pte_same() returns true due to entry reuse.
> +			 */
> +			if (swapcache_prepare(entry))
> +				goto out;
> +
>  			/* skip swapcache */
>  			folio = vma_alloc_folio(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, 0,
>  						vma, vmf->address, false);
> @@ -4116,6 +4126,9 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  unlock:
>  	if (vmf->pte)
>  		pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> +	/* Clear the swap cache pin for direct swapin after PTL unlock */
> +	if (folio && !swapcache)
> +		swapcache_clear(si, entry);
>  out:
>  	if (si)
>  		put_swap_device(si);
> @@ -4124,6 +4137,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  	if (vmf->pte)
>  		pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
>  out_page:
> +	if (!swapcache)
> +		swapcache_clear(si, entry);
>  	folio_unlock(folio);
>  out_release:
>  	folio_put(folio);

What happens?

do_swap_page
  ..
  swapcache_prepare() <- tured the cache flag on
   
  folio = vma_alloc_folio <- failed to allocate the folio
  page = &foio->page; <- crash but it's out of scope from this patch

  ..
  if (!folio)
     goto unlock;

..
unlock:
  swapcache_clear(si, entry) <- it's skipped this time.
  

Can we simply introduce a boolean flag to state the special case and
clear the cache state based on the flag? 

if (swapcache_prepare())
  goto out;

need_clear_cache = true;

out_path:
   if (need_clear_cache)
      swapcache_clear