Hi Minchan, On Sun 18-02-18 18:22:45, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:12:27PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: > > From: Huang Ying <ying.hu...@intel.com> > > > > When page_mapping() is called and the mapping is dereferenced in > > page_evicatable() through shrink_active_list(), it is possible for the > > inode to be truncated and the embedded address space to be freed at > > the same time. This may lead to the following race. > > > > CPU1 CPU2 > > > > truncate(inode) shrink_active_list() > > ... page_evictable(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 > > > > > > mapping_unevictable(mapping) > > > > test_bit(AS_UNEVICTABLE, &mapping->flags); > > - we've dereferenced mapping which is potentially already free. > > > > Similar race exists between swap cache freeing and page_evicatable() too. > > > > The address_space in inode and swap cache will be freed after a RCU > > grace period. So the races are fixed via enclosing the page_mapping() > > and address_space usage in rcu_read_lock/unlock(). Some comments are > > added in code to make it clear what is protected by the RCU read lock. > > Is it always true for every FSes, even upcoming FSes? > IOW, do we have any strict rule FS folks must use RCU(i.e., call_rcu) > to destroy inode? > > Let's cc linux-fs.
That's actually a good question. Pathname lookup relies on inodes being protected by RCU so "normal" filesystems definitely need to use RCU freeing of inodes. OTOH a filesystem could in theory refuse any attempt for RCU pathname walk (in its .d_revalidate/.d_compare callback) and then get away with freeing its inodes normally AFAICT. I don't see that happening anywhere in the tree but in theory it is possible with some effort... But frankly I don't see a good reason for that so all we should do is to document that .destroy_inode needs to free the inode structure through RCU if it uses page cache? Al? Honza -- Jan Kara <j...@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR