From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932459AbeCEBHY (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2018 20:07:24 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:35982 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932337AbeCEBHV (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2018 20:07:21 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,425,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="205469844" From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Andrew Morton Cc: , , Minchan Kim , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Dave Hansen , Arnd Bergmann , Chen Liqin , Russell King , "Yoshinori Sato" , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Guan Xuetao , "David S. Miller" , Chris Zankel , Vineet Gupta , Ley Foon Tan , Ralf Baechle , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Fix races between swapoff and flush dcache References: <20180302080426.14588-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20180302131829.7009e1e19f478d55159928de@linux-foundation.org> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 09:07:17 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20180302131829.7009e1e19f478d55159928de@linux-foundation.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:18:29 -0800") Message-ID: <877eqr49fe.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:04:26 +0800 "Huang, Ying" wrote: > >> From: Huang Ying >> >> >From commit 4b3ef9daa4fc ("mm/swap: split swap cache into 64MB >> trunks") on, after swapoff, the address_space associated with the swap >> device will be freed. So page_mapping() users which may touch the >> address_space need some kind of mechanism to prevent the address_space >> from being freed during accessing. >> >> The dcache flushing functions (flush_dcache_page(), etc) in >> architecture specific code may access the address_space of swap device >> for anonymous pages in swap cache via page_mapping() function. But in >> some cases there are no mechanisms to prevent the swap device from >> being swapoff, for example, >> >> CPU1 CPU2 >> __get_user_pages() swapoff() >> flush_dcache_page() >> mapping = page_mapping() >> ... exit_swap_address_space() >> ... kvfree(spaces) >> mapping_mapped(mapping) >> >> The address space may be accessed after being freed. >> >> But from cachetlb.txt and Russell King, flush_dcache_page() only care >> about file cache pages, for anonymous pages, flush_anon_page() should >> be used. The implementation of flush_dcache_page() in all >> architectures follows this too. They will check whether >> page_mapping() is NULL and whether mapping_mapped() is true to >> determine whether to flush the dcache immediately. And they will use >> interval tree (mapping->i_mmap) to find all user space mappings. >> While mapping_mapped() and mapping->i_mmap isn't used by anonymous >> pages in swap cache at all. >> >> So, to fix the race between swapoff and flush dcache, __page_mapping() >> is add to return the address_space for file cache pages and NULL >> otherwise. All page_mapping() invoking in flush dcache functions are >> replaced with __page_mapping(). >> >> The patch is only build tested, because I have no machine with >> architecture other than x86. >> >> ... >> >> +/* >> + * For file cache pages, return the address_space, otherwise return NULL >> + */ >> +struct address_space *__page_mapping(struct page *page) >> +{ >> + struct address_space *mapping; >> + >> + page = compound_head(page); >> + >> + /* This happens if someone calls flush_dcache_page on slab page */ >> + if (unlikely(PageSlab(page))) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + mapping = page->mapping; >> + if ((unsigned long)mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_ANON) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + return (void *)((unsigned long)mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS); >> +} >> + > > I think page_mapping_file() would be a better name. Thanks! I will use that name. > And do we really need to duplicate page_mapping()? Could it be > > struct address_space *page_mapping_file(struct page *page) > { > if (PageSwapCache(page)) > return NULL; > return page_mapping(page); > } Yes. This looks better. > (We don't need to run compound_head() here, do we?) Yes. I think so. Best Regards, Huang, Ying