From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932637Ab0IXQ2S (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:28:18 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:46137 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932612Ab0IXQ2O (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:28:14 -0400 X-Mailbox-Line: From gregkh@clark.site Fri Sep 24 09:26:17 2010 Message-Id: <20100924162617.072199467@clark.site> User-Agent: quilt/0.48-11.2 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:24:13 -0700 From: Greg KH To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Hugh Dickins Subject: [25/80] mm: further fix swapin race condition In-Reply-To: <20100924162706.GA7381@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2.6.35-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ From: Hugh Dickins commit 31c4a3d3a0f84a5847665f8aa0552d188389f791 upstream. Commit 4969c1192d15 ("mm: fix swapin race condition") is now agreed to be incomplete. There's a race, not very much less likely than the original race envisaged, in which it is further necessary to check that the swapcache page's swap has not changed. Here's the reasoning: cast in terms of reuse_swap_page(), but probably could be reformulated to rely on try_to_free_swap() instead, or on swapoff+swapon. A, faults into do_swap_page(): does page1 = lookup_swap_cache(swap1) and comes through the lock_page(page1). B, a racing thread of the same process, faults on the same address: does page1 = lookup_swap_cache(swap1) and now waits in lock_page(page1), but for whatever reason is unlucky not to get the lock any time soon. A carries on through do_swap_page(), a write fault, but cannot reuse the swap page1 (another reference to swap1). Unlocks the page1 (but B doesn't get it yet), does COW in do_wp_page(), page2 now in that pte. C, perhaps the parent of A+B, comes in and write faults the same swap page1 into its mm, reuse_swap_page() succeeds this time, swap1 is freed. kswapd comes in after some time (B still unlucky) and swaps out some pages from A+B and C: it allocates the original swap1 to page2 in A+B, and some other swap2 to the original page1 now in C. But does not immediately free page1 (actually it couldn't: B holds a reference), leaving it in swap cache for now. B at last gets the lock on page1, hooray! Is PageSwapCache(page1)? Yes. Is pte_same(*page_table, orig_pte)? Yes, because page2 has now been given the swap1 which page1 used to have. So B proceeds to insert page1 into A+B's page_table, though its content now belongs to C, quite different from what A wrote there. B ought to have checked that page1's swap was still swap1. Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- mm/memory.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/mm/memory.c +++ b/mm/memory.c @@ -2682,10 +2682,12 @@ static int do_swap_page(struct mm_struct delayacct_clear_flag(DELAYACCT_PF_SWAPIN); /* - * Make sure try_to_free_swap didn't release the swapcache - * from under us. The page pin isn't enough to prevent that. + * Make sure try_to_free_swap or reuse_swap_page or swapoff did not + * release the swapcache from under us. The page pin, and pte_same + * test below, are not enough to exclude that. Even if it is still + * swapcache, we need to check that the page's swap has not changed. */ - if (unlikely(!PageSwapCache(page))) + if (unlikely(!PageSwapCache(page) || page_private(page) != entry.val)) goto out_page; if (ksm_might_need_to_copy(page, vma, address)) {