On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 12:02 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (cc Hugh)
> 
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:54:22 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski 
> <k.kozlow...@samsung.com> wrote:
> 
> > Swapoff used old_block_size from swap_info which could be overwritten by
> > concurrent swapon.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Weijie Yang <weijie.yang...@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlow...@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/swapfile.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
> > index 3963fc2..de7c904 100644
> > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > @@ -1824,6 +1824,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, 
> > specialfile)
> >     struct filename *pathname;
> >     int i, type, prev;
> >     int err;
> > +   unsigned int old_block_size;
> >  
> >     if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> >             return -EPERM;
> > @@ -1914,6 +1915,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, 
> > specialfile)
> >     }
> >  
> >     swap_file = p->swap_file;
> > +   old_block_size = p->old_block_size;
> >     p->swap_file = NULL;
> >     p->max = 0;
> >     swap_map = p->swap_map;
> > @@ -1938,7 +1940,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(swapoff, const char __user *, 
> > specialfile)
> >     inode = mapping->host;
> >     if (S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) {
> >             struct block_device *bdev = I_BDEV(inode);
> > -           set_blocksize(bdev, p->old_block_size);
> > +           set_blocksize(bdev, old_block_size);
> >             blkdev_put(bdev, FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_EXCL);
> >     } else {
> >             mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> 
> I find it worrying that a swapon can run concurrently with any of this
> swapoff code.  It just seem to be asking for trouble and the code
> really isn't set up for this and races here will be poorly tested for
> 
> I'm wondering if we should just extend swapon_mutex a lot and eliminate
> the concurrency?

It seems there are even more races here between swapoff & swapon (and
swapon with swapon). Simple script:
        for i in `seq 1000`
        do
                swapoff -a &
                swapon -a &
        done
causes frequent switches of block size of devices (jumping from 512 to 4096).


Best regards,
Krzysztof



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to