The patch titled Subject: mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff() has been added to the -mm mm-unstable branch. Its filename is mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff.patch

This patch will shortly appear at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches...

This patch will later appear in the mm-unstable branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm

Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm and is updated there every 2-3 working days

------------------------------------------------------ From: Ryan Roberts ryan.roberts@arm.com Subject: mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff() Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:03:56 +0000

There was previously a theoretical window where swapoff() could run and teardown a swap_info_struct while a call to free_swap_and_cache() was running in another thread. This could cause, amongst other bad possibilities, swap_page_trans_huge_swapped() (called by free_swap_and_cache()) to access the freed memory for swap_map.

This is a theoretical problem and I haven't been able to provoke it from a test case. But there has been agreement based on code review that this is possible (see link below).

Fix it by using get_swap_device()/put_swap_device(), which will stall swapoff(). There was an extra check in _swap_info_get() to confirm that the swap entry was not free. This isn't present in get_swap_device() because it doesn't make sense in general due to the race between getting the reference and swapoff. So I've added an equivalent check directly in free_swap_and_cache().

Details of how to provoke one possible issue (thanks to David Hildenbrand for deriving this):

--8<-----

__swap_entry_free() might be the last user and result in "count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE".

swapoff->try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as soon as si->inuse_pages==0.

So the question is: could someone reclaim the folio and turn si->inuse_pages==0, before we completed swap_page_trans_huge_swapped().

Imagine the following: 2 MiB folio in the swapcache. Only 2 subpages are still references by swap entries.

Process 1 still references subpage 0 via swap entry. Process 2 still references subpage 1 via swap entry.

Process 1 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache(). -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE [then, preempted in the hypervisor etc.]

Process 2 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache(). -> count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE

Process 2 goes ahead, passes swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(), and calls __try_to_reclaim_swap().

__try_to_reclaim_swap()->folio_free_swap()->delete_from_swap_cache()-> put_swap_folio()->free_swap_slot()->swapcache_free_entries()-> swap_entry_free()->swap_range_free()-> ... WRITE_ONCE(si->inuse_pages, si->inuse_pages - nr_entries);

What stops swapoff to succeed after process 2 reclaimed the swap cache but before process1 finished its call to swap_page_trans_huge_swapped()?

--8<-----

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240306140356.3974886-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com Fixes: 7c00bafee87c ("mm/swap: free swap slots in batch") Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/65a66eb9-41f8-4790-8db2-0c70ea15979f@redhat... Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts ryan.roberts@arm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com Cc: "Huang, Ying" ying.huang@intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---

mm/swapfile.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/mm/swapfile.c~mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff +++ a/mm/swapfile.c @@ -1232,6 +1232,11 @@ static unsigned char __swap_entry_free_l * with get_swap_device() and put_swap_device(), unless the swap * functions call get/put_swap_device() by themselves. * + * Note that when only holding the PTL, swapoff might succeed immediately + * after freeing a swap entry. Therefore, immediately after + * __swap_entry_free(), the swap info might become stale and should not + * be touched without a prior get_swap_device(). + * * Check whether swap entry is valid in the swap device. If so, * return pointer to swap_info_struct, and keep the swap entry valid * via preventing the swap device from being swapoff, until @@ -1609,13 +1614,19 @@ int free_swap_and_cache(swp_entry_t entr if (non_swap_entry(entry)) return 1;

- p = _swap_info_get(entry); + p = get_swap_device(entry); if (p) { + if (WARN_ON(data_race(!p->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)]))) { + put_swap_device(p); + return 0; + } + count = __swap_entry_free(p, entry); if (count == SWAP_HAS_CACHE && !swap_page_trans_huge_swapped(p, entry)) __try_to_reclaim_swap(p, swp_offset(entry), TTRS_UNMAPPED | TTRS_FULL); + put_swap_device(p); } return p != NULL; } _

Patches currently in -mm which might be from ryan.roberts@arm.com are

mm-swap-fix-race-between-free_swap_and_cache-and-swapoff.patch