On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:20:04AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> From 2fd278b1ca6c3e260ad249808b62f671d8db5a7b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 11:38:24 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH v21 06/19] mm/rmap: stop store reordering issue on
>  page->mapping
> 
> Hugh Dickins and Minchan Kim observed a long time issue which
> discussed here, but actully the mentioned fix missed.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150504031722.GA2768@blaptop/
> The store reordering may cause problem in the scenario:
> 
>       CPU 0                                           CPU1
>    do_anonymous_page
>       page_add_new_anon_rmap()
>         page->mapping = anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON
>       lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable()
>         spin_lock(lruvec->lock)
>         SetPageLRU()
>         spin_unlock(lruvec->lock)
>                                               /* idletacking judged it as LRU
>                                                * page so pass the page in
>                                                * page_idle_clear_pte_refs
>                                                */
>                                               page_idle_clear_pte_refs
>                                                 rmap_walk
>                                                   if PageAnon(page)
> 
> Johannes give detailed examples how the store reordering could cause
> a trouble:
> "The concern is the SetPageLRU may get reorder before 'page->mapping'
> setting, That would make CPU 1 will observe at page->mapping after
> observing PageLRU set on the page.
> 
> 1. anon_vma + PAGE_MAPPING_ANON
> 
>    That's the in-order scenario and is fine.
> 
> 2. NULL
> 
>    That's possible if the page->mapping store gets reordered to occur
>    after SetPageLRU. That's fine too because we check for it.
> 
> 3. anon_vma without the PAGE_MAPPING_ANON bit
> 
>    That would be a problem and could lead to all kinds of undesirable
>    behavior including crashes and data corruption.
> 
>    Is it possible? AFAICT the compiler is allowed to tear the store to
>    page->mapping and I don't see anything that would prevent it.
> 
> That said, I also don't see how the reader testing PageLRU under the
> lru_lock would prevent that in the first place. AFAICT we need that
> WRITE_ONCE() around the page->mapping assignment."
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
> Cc: Minchan Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Thanks Alex!

Reply via email to