Re: [PATCH 3.16 183/410] mm: pin address_space before dereferencing it while isolating an LRU page
From: Hugh Dickins
Date: Sun Jun 10 2018 - 14:35:47 EST
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.16.57-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
Not an objection as such, but if you're including this one,
please be sure to add 145e1a71e090575c74969e3daa8136d1e5b99fc8
"mm: fix the NULL mapping case in __isolate_lru_page()"
Thanks,
Hugh
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> commit 69d763fc6d3aee787a3e8c8c35092b4f4960fa5d upstream.
>
> Minchan Kim asked the following question -- what locks protects
> address_space destroying when race happens between inode trauncation and
> __isolate_lru_page? Jan Kara clarified by describing the race as follows
>
> CPU1 CPU2
>
> truncate(inode) __isolate_lru_page()
> ...
> truncate_inode_page(mapping, page);
> delete_from_page_cache(page)
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
> __delete_from_page_cache(page, NULL)
> page_cache_tree_delete(..)
> ... mapping = page_mapping(page);
> page->mapping = NULL;
> ...
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
> page_cache_free_page(mapping, page)
> put_page(page)
> if (put_page_testzero(page)) -> false
> - inode now has no pages and can be freed including embedded address_space
>
> if (mapping && !mapping->a_ops->migratepage)
> - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free.
>
> The race is theoretically possible but unlikely. Before the
> delete_from_page_cache, truncate_cleanup_page is called so the page is
> likely to be !PageDirty or PageWriteback which gets skipped by the only
> caller that checks the mappping in __isolate_lru_page. Even if the race
> occurs, a substantial amount of work has to happen during a tiny window
> with no preemption but it could potentially be done using a virtual
> machine to artifically slow one CPU or halt it during the critical
> window.
>
> This patch should eliminate the race with truncation by try-locking the
> page before derefencing mapping and aborting if the lock was not
> acquired. There was a suggestion from Huang Ying to use RCU as a
> side-effect to prevent mapping being freed. However, I do not like the
> solution as it's an unconventional means of preserving a mapping and
> it's not a context where rcu_read_lock is obviously protecting rcu data.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180104102512.2qos3h5vqzeisrek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: c82449352854 ("mm: compaction: make isolate_lru_page() filter-aware again")
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [bwh: Backported to 3.16: adjust context]
> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1206,6 +1206,7 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page
>
> if (PageDirty(page)) {
> struct address_space *mapping;
> + bool migrate_dirty;
>
> /* ISOLATE_CLEAN means only clean pages */
> if (mode & ISOLATE_CLEAN)
> @@ -1214,10 +1215,19 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page
> /*
> * Only pages without mappings or that have a
> * ->migratepage callback are possible to migrate
> - * without blocking
> + * without blocking. However, we can be racing with
> + * truncation so it's necessary to lock the page
> + * to stabilise the mapping as truncation holds
> + * the page lock until after the page is removed
> + * from the page cache.
> */
> + if (!trylock_page(page))
> + return ret;
> +
> mapping = page_mapping(page);
> - if (mapping && !mapping->a_ops->migratepage)
> + migrate_dirty = mapping && mapping->a_ops->migratepage;
> + unlock_page(page);
> + if (!migrate_dirty)
> return ret;
> }
> }
>
>