From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Cc: "黄朝阳 (Zhaoyang Huang)" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"康纪滨 (Steve Kang)" <Steve.Kang@unisoc.com>
Subject: Re: summarize all information again at bottom//reply: reply: [PATCH] mm: fix a race scenario in folio_isolate_lru
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:22:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgDt9mwN-Py5Y-xr@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznEzpcWi4oXVn_WFahnQj3dHcwc_4VW6m1Ss-KJ8mD3F3Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 07:14:27PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> ok. It seems like madvise is robust enough to leave no BUGs. I presume
> another two scenarios which call folio_isloate_lru by any other ways
> but PTE. Besides, scenario 2 reminds me of a previous bug reported by
> me as find_get_entry entered in a livelock where the folio's refcnt ==
> 0 but remains at xarray which causes the reset->retry loops forever. I
> would like to reply in that thread for more details.
>
> Scenario 1:
> 0. Thread_bad gets the folio by find_get_entry and preempted before
> folio_lock (could be the second round scan of
> truncate_inode_pages_range)
> refcnt == 2(page_cache, fbatch_bad), PG_lru == true, PG_lock == false
> folio = find_get_entry
> folio_try_get_rcu
> <preempted>
> folio_try_lock
>
> 1. Thread_truncate get the folio via
> truncate_inode_pages_range->find_lock_entries
> refcnt == 3(page_cache, fbatch_bad, fbatch_truncate), PG_lru ==
> true, PG_lock == true
Hang on, you can't have two threads in truncate_inode_pages_range()
at the same time. I appreciate that we don't have any documentation
of that, but if it were possible, we'd see other crashes. Removing
the folio from the page cache sets folio->mapping to NULL. And
__filemap_remove_folio() uses folio->mapping in
filemap_unaccount_folio() and page_cache_delete(), so we'd get NULL
pointer dereferences.
I see a hint in the DAX code that it's an fs-dependent lock:
/*
* This gets called from truncate / punch_hole path. As such, the caller
* must hold locks protecting against concurrent modifications of the
* page cache (usually fs-private i_mmap_sem for writing). Since the
* caller has seen a DAX entry for this index, we better find it
* at that index as well...
*/
so maybe that's why there's no lockdep_assert() in
truncate_inode_pages_range(), but there should be a comment.
> Scenario 2:
> 0. Thread_bad gets the folio by find_get_entry and preempted before
> folio_lock (could be the second round scan of
> truncate_inode_pages_range)
> refcnt == 2(page_cache, fbatch_bad), PG_lru == true, PG_lock == false
> folio = find_get_entry
> folio_try_get_rcu
> <preempted>
> folio_try_lock
>
> 1. Thread_readahead remove the folio from page cache and drop one
> refcnt by filemap_remove_folio(get rid of the folios which failed to
> launch IO during readahead)
> refcnt == 1(fbatch_bad), PG_lru == true, PG_lock == true
So readaahead inserts the folio locked, and then calls
filemap_remove_folio() without having unlocked it.
filemap_remove_folio() sets folio->mapping to NULL in
page_cache_delete(). When "Thread_bad" wakes up, it gets the
folio lock, calls truncate_inode_folio() and sees that
folio->mapping != mapping, so it doesn't call filemap_remove_folio().
> 4. Thread_bad schedule back from step 0 and clear one refcnt wrongly
> when doing truncate_inode_folio->filemap_remove_folio as it take this
> refcnt as the page cache one
> refcnt == 1'(thread_isolate), PG_lru == false, PG_lock == false
> find_get_entries
> folio = find_get_entry
> folio_try_get_rcu
> folio_lock
> <no check as folio->mapping != mapping as folio_lock_entries does>
> truncate_inode_folio
> filemap_remove_folio
> <preempted>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-25 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-18 9:32 summarize all information again at bottom//reply: reply: [PATCH] mm: fix a race scenario in folio_isolate_lru 黄朝阳 (Zhaoyang Huang)
2024-03-18 12:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-19 0:48 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-19 3:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-21 8:25 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-21 12:36 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-22 1:52 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-22 3:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-24 11:14 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-25 3:22 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2024-03-26 9:06 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-26 12:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-27 1:25 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-27 12:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-28 1:27 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-28 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-28 4:03 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-28 14:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-03-29 5:49 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2024-03-29 12:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZgDt9mwN-Py5Y-xr@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=Steve.Kang@unisoc.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).