On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:02 AM Minchan Kim minchan@kernel.org wrote:
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
Thanks, will update the message.
<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.... 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?
Good idea, that should make the code easier to understand.