From nobody Sun Feb 8 00:50:26 2026 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FB921788B3; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711542224; cv=none; b=Uf3IsFVknCIlzCMU2K98J2aiWZfcEc1NzbTRL0xUaIT66JYAtkRdDgpz5En2gyIRknhNRZ1gdWZFbZ2sk1teFJ2qr4f37AKhLOpG38KxlJkaZITHRclrFq1eHjUoYw2HpWBnZvYnd8rEz8VV4ho1KZSkVUKZMtqwgMcmXWtB/cU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711542224; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xm8T28oIDHMvWTt9NSn1dlKeEuIotCmc790ci7Yspc8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=c5VWP8hf/QoaA1BHEkYb90oTOPp4B7fah3tDNOQHmzJFNWZZ8+rtcQUCDOpDR6pFWs90zu/Y+f/AVD2TIMuoX0jaa222uOe2NC+yF5otkvnOYJc6Kkm/gDx+jkHLRt0DHpB+PK1CqTldajp9foc1zVMYoGvnZRUrrwwSOiGAvl0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=LeYyS/zE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="LeYyS/zE" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3FB5C433F1; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:23:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711542223; bh=xm8T28oIDHMvWTt9NSn1dlKeEuIotCmc790ci7Yspc8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=LeYyS/zEK2UIH9T1zR5TcMXEhhcqZdxS9Itq6y7s66ux9uCI3/sxpK2TTmcYat6nP 9bobyi/48zKXfpxzfFRRBcNuETqsCuIzgeZG1dJGAdrZcPPtnsi1a0aTWEFZhs5gbW T+iIjUWk33s7UHTzF0RIcvFk7VKVpyrBW5d7o2px2PisZCVd6PM/vQvMb66WtV0u+P Okjzw8jrCwmzPDzCX/gLCFjPAy9Gtow07pzZiwniVQi0bsSvFeDkBxfdxtAxNazKeo L68c/tNUGE/l1rFF5y5VKQWv+sMUlY3RaJiIwD3UN4n9zPpK5UqxKtmojHt67fzOne slGoDzHF8WYug== From: Sasha Levin To: stable@vger.kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com Cc: David Hildenbrand , "Huang, Ying" , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: FAILED: Patch "mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff()" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 08:23:41 -0400 Message-ID: <20240327122342.2838763-1-sashal@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Patchwork-Hint: ignore X-stable: review Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to . Thanks, Sasha ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 82b1c07a0af603e3c47b906c8e991dc96f01688e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ryan Roberts Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:03:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] mm: swap: fix race between free_swap_and_cache() and swapoff() 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 =3D=3D SWAP_HAS_CACHE". swapoff->try_to_unuse() will stop as soon as soon as si->inuse_pages=3D=3D0. So the question is: could someone reclaim the folio and turn si->inuse_pages=3D=3D0, 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 =3D=3D SWAP_HAS_CACHE [then, preempted in the hypervisor etc.] Process 2 quits. Calls free_swap_and_cache(). -> count =3D=3D 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.c= om Fixes: 7c00bafee87c ("mm/swap: free swap slots in batch") Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/65a66eb9-41f8-4790-8db2-0c70ea1597= 9f@redhat.com/ Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts Cc: David Hildenbrand Cc: "Huang, Ying" Cc: Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- mm/swapfile.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c index 2b3a2d85e350b..1155a63041192 100644 --- a/mm/swapfile.c +++ b/mm/swapfile.c @@ -1232,6 +1232,11 @@ static unsigned char __swap_entry_free_locked(struct= swap_info_struct *p, * 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 entry) if (non_swap_entry(entry)) return 1; =20 - p =3D _swap_info_get(entry); + p =3D get_swap_device(entry); if (p) { + if (WARN_ON(data_race(!p->swap_map[swp_offset(entry)]))) { + put_swap_device(p); + return 0; + } + count =3D __swap_entry_free(p, entry); if (count =3D=3D 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 !=3D NULL; } --=20 2.43.0