Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <86142559-f15c-938a-a0eb-1ea590cb5e91@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 10:31:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: Move arch_do_swap_page() call to before
 swap_free()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UXVuLXdlaSBMaW4gKOael+e+pOW0tCk=?= 
        <Qun-wei.Lin@mediatek.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "surenb@google.com" <surenb@google.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?Q2hpbndlbiBDaGFuZyAo5by16Yym5paHKQ==?= 
        <chinwen.chang@mediatek.com>,
        "kasan-dev@googlegroups.com" <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?S3Vhbi1ZaW5nIExlZSAo5p2O5Yag56mOKQ==?= 
        <Kuan-Ying.Lee@mediatek.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?Q2FzcGVyIExpICjmnY7kuK3mpq4p?= <casper.li@mediatek.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>, will@kernel.org,
        eugenis@google.com, Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230512235755.1589034-1-pcc@google.com>
 <20230512235755.1589034-2-pcc@google.com>
 <7471013e-4afb-e445-5985-2441155fc82c@redhat.com> <ZGJtJobLrBg3PtHm@arm.com>
 <91246137-a3d2-689f-8ff6-eccc0e61c8fe@redhat.com>
 <CAMn1gO4cbEmpDzkdN10DyaGe=2Wg4Y19-v8gHRqgQoD4Bxd+cw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <CAMn1gO4cbEmpDzkdN10DyaGe=2Wg4Y19-v8gHRqgQoD4Bxd+cw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


>>> Is there any other way of handling this? E.g. not release the metadata
>>> in arch_swap_invalidate_page() but later in set_pte_at() once it was
>>> restored. But then we may leak this metadata if there's no set_pte_at()
>>> (the process mapping the swap entry died).
>>
>> That was my immediate thought: do we really have to hook into
>> swap_range_free() at all?
> 
> As I alluded to in another reply, without the hook in
> swap_range_free() I think we would either end up with a race or an
> effective memory leak in the arch code that maintains the metadata for
> swapped out pages, as there would be no way for the arch-specific code
> to know when it is safe to free it after swapin.

Agreed, hooking swap_range_free() is actually cleaner (also considering 
COW-shared pages).

> 
>> And I also wondered why we have to do this
>> from set_pte_at() and not do this explicitly (maybe that's the other
>> arch_* callback on the swapin path).
> 
> I don't think it's necessary, as the set_pte_at() call sites for
> swapped in pages are known. I'd much rather do this via an explicit
> hook at those call sites, as the existing approach of implicit
> restoring seems too subtle and easy to be overlooked when refactoring,
> as we have seen with this bug. In the end we only have 3 call sites
> for the hook and hopefully the comments that I'm adding are sufficient
> to ensure that any new swapin code should end up with a call to the
> hook in the right place.


Agreed, much cleaner, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb