mm/zswap: invalidate old entry when store fail or !zswap_enabled

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We may encounter duplicate entry in the zswap_store():

1. swap slot that freed to per-cpu swap cache, doesn't invalidate the zswap entry, then got reused. This has been fixed.

2. !exclusive load mode, swapin folio will leave its zswap entry on the tree, then swapout again. This has been removed.

3. one folio can be dirtied again after zswap_store(), so need to zswap_store() again. This should be handled correctly.

So we must invalidate the old duplicate entry before insert the new one, which actually doesn't have to be done at the beginning of zswap_store(). And this is a normal situation, we shouldn't WARN_ON(1) in this case, so delete it. (The WARN_ON(1) seems want to detect swap entry UAF problem? But not very necessary here.)

The good point is that we don't need to lock tree twice in the store success path.

Note we still need to invalidate the old duplicate entry in the store failure path, otherwise the new data in swapfile could be overwrite by the old data in zswap pool when lru writeback.

We have to do this even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

Fixes 42c06a0e8ebe ("mm: kill frontswap")

Cc <[email protected]>

Acked-by Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Acked-by Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]>

Acked-by Chris Li <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

---
v4:
- VM_WARN_ON generate no code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, change to use WARN_ON.

v3:
- Fix a few grammatical problems in comments, per Yosry.

v2:
- Change the duplicate entry invalidation loop to if, since we hold the lock, we won't find it once we invalidate it, per Yosry.
- Add Fixes tag.

---
 mm/zswap.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

mm/zswap.c +16 -18

index cd67f7f6b302..62fe307521c9 100644
@@ -1518,18 +1518,8 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
                return false;
 
        if (!zswap_enabled)
-               return false;
+               goto check_old;
 
-       /*
-        * If this is a duplicate, it must be removed before attempting to store
-        * it, otherwise, if the store fails the old page won't be removed from
-        * the tree, and it might be written back overriding the new data.
-        */
-       spin_lock(&tree->lock);
-       entry = zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, offset);
-       if (entry)
-               zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry);
-       spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
        objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_folio(folio);
        if (objcg && !obj_cgroup_may_zswap(objcg)) {
                memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg);

@@ -1608,14 +1598,12 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
        /* map */
        spin_lock(&tree->lock);
        /*
-        * A duplicate entry should have been removed at the beginning of this
-        * function. Since the swap entry should be pinned, if a duplicate is
-        * found again here it means that something went wrong in the swap
-        * cache.
+        * The folio may have been dirtied again, invalidate the
+        * possibly stale entry before inserting the new entry.
         */
-       while (zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry) == -EEXIST) {
-               WARN_ON(1);
+       if (zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry) == -EEXIST) {
                zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, dupentry);
+               WARN_ON(zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry));
        }
        if (entry->length) {
                INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entry->lru);

@@ -1638,6 +1626,17 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 reject:
        if (objcg)
                obj_cgroup_put(objcg);
+check_old:
+       /*
+        * If the zswap store fails or zswap is disabled, we must invalidate the
+        * possibly stale entry which was previously stored at this offset.
+        * Otherwise, writeback could overwrite the new data in the swapfile.
+        */
+       spin_lock(&tree->lock);
+       entry = zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, offset);
+       if (entry)
+               zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, entry);
+       spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
        return false;
 
 shrink:
--

2.40.1

Quoted 33 lines · On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 3:54 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We may encounter duplicate entry in the zswap_store():

1. swap slot that freed to per-cpu swap cache, doesn't invalidate the zswap entry, then got reused. This has been fixed.

2. !exclusive load mode, swapin folio will leave its zswap entry on the tree, then swapout again. This has been removed.

3. one folio can be dirtied again after zswap_store(), so need to zswap_store() again. This should be handled correctly.

So we must invalidate the old duplicate entry before insert the new one, which actually doesn't have to be done at the beginning of zswap_store(). And this is a normal situation, we shouldn't WARN_ON(1) in this case, so delete it. (The WARN_ON(1) seems want to detect swap entry UAF problem? But not very necessary here.)

The good point is that we don't need to lock tree twice in the store success path.

Note we still need to invalidate the old duplicate entry in the store failure path, otherwise the new data in swapfile could be overwrite by the old data in zswap pool when lru writeback.

We have to do this even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

Quoted 6 lines

Fixes 42c06a0e8ebe ("mm: kill frontswap")

Cc <[email protected]>

Acked-by Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Acked-by Yosry Ahmed <[email protected]>

Acked-by Chris Li <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

Acked-by Nhat Pham <[email protected]>

Sorry for being late to the party, and thanks for fixing this, Chengming!

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We may encounter duplicate entry in the zswap_store():

1. swap slot that freed to per-cpu swap cache, doesn't invalidate the zswap entry, then got reused. This has been fixed.

2. !exclusive load mode, swapin folio will leave its zswap entry on the tree, then swapout again. This has been removed.

3. one folio can be dirtied again after zswap_store(), so need to zswap_store() again. This should be handled correctly.

So we must invalidate the old duplicate entry before insert the new one, which actually doesn't have to be done at the beginning of zswap_store(). And this is a normal situation, we shouldn't WARN_ON(1) in this case, so delete it. (The WARN_ON(1) seems want to detect swap entry UAF problem? But not very necessary here.)

The good point is that we don't need to lock tree twice in the store success path.

Note we still need to invalidate the old duplicate entry in the store failure path, otherwise the new data in swapfile could be overwrite by the old data in zswap pool when lru writeback.

We have to do this even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

Fixes 42c06a0e8ebe ("mm: kill frontswap")

Cc <[email protected]>

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We have to invalidate any duplicate entry even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

Fixes 42c06a0e8ebe ("mm: kill frontswap")

Cc <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

 mm/zswap.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

mm/zswap.c +5 -1

index fe7ee2640c69..32633d0597dc 100644
@@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 	if (folio_test_large(folio))
 		return false;
 
-	if (!zswap_enabled || !tree)
+	if (!tree)
 		return false;
 
 	/*

@@ -1531,6 +1531,10 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 		zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, dupentry);
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
+
+	if (!zswap_enabled)
+		return false;
+
 	objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_folio(folio);
 	if (objcg && !obj_cgroup_may_zswap(objcg)) {
 		memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg);

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We have to invalidate any duplicate entry even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

...

mm/zswap.c +1 -1

@@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 	if (folio_test_large(folio))
 		return false;
 
-	if (!zswap_enabled || !tree)
+	if (!tree)
 		return false;
 
 	/*

Quoted 22 lines · On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 02:32:54 +0000 [email protected] wrote:

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We have to invalidate any duplicate entry even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

...

mm/zswap.c +1 -1

@@ -1516,7 +1516,7 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 	if (folio_test_large(folio))
 		return false;
 
-	if (!zswap_enabled || !tree)
+	if (!tree)
 		return false;
 
 	/*

mm/zswap.c bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio) · line 1540

Quoted 10 lines

mm/zswap.c +4 -0

@@ -1531,6 +1531,10 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 		zswap_invalidate_entry(tree, dupentry);
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
+
+	if (!zswap_enabled)
+		return false;
+
 	objcg = get_obj_cgroup_from_folio(folio);
 	if (objcg && !obj_cgroup_may_zswap(objcg)) {
 		memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_objcg(objcg);

OK, thanks.

I saw only one reject from mm-unstable patches. Your patch "mm/zswap:
make sure each swapfile always have zswap rb-tree" now does

mm/zswap.c renamed from mm/zswap.c~mm-zswap-make-sure-each-swapfile-always-have-zswap-rb-tree +0 -3

@@ -1518,9 +1518,6 @@ bool zswap_store(struct folio *folio)
 	if (folio_test_large(folio))
 		return false;
 
-	if (!tree)
-		return false;
-
 	/*
 	 * If this is a duplicate, it must be removed before attempting to store
 	 * it, otherwise, if the store fails the old page won't be removed from

Quoted 26 lines · On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:54:06 +0000 [email protected] wrote:

From: Chengming Zhou <[email protected]>

We may encounter duplicate entry in the zswap_store():

1. swap slot that freed to per-cpu swap cache, doesn't invalidate the zswap entry, then got reused. This has been fixed.

2. !exclusive load mode, swapin folio will leave its zswap entry on the tree, then swapout again. This has been removed.

3. one folio can be dirtied again after zswap_store(), so need to zswap_store() again. This should be handled correctly.

So we must invalidate the old duplicate entry before insert the new one, which actually doesn't have to be done at the beginning of zswap_store(). And this is a normal situation, we shouldn't WARN_ON(1) in this case, so delete it. (The WARN_ON(1) seems want to detect swap entry UAF problem? But not very necessary here.)

The good point is that we don't need to lock tree twice in the store success path.

Note we still need to invalidate the old duplicate entry in the store failure path, otherwise the new data in swapfile could be overwrite by the old data in zswap pool when lru writeback.

Quoted 8 lines

We have to do this even when !zswap_enabled since zswap can be disabled anytime. If the folio store success before, then got dirtied again but zswap disabled, we won't invalidate the old duplicate entry in the zswap_store(). So later lru writeback may overwrite the new data in swapfile.

Fixes 42c06a0e8ebe ("mm: kill frontswap")

Cc <[email protected]>

We have a patch ordering issue.

As a cc:stable hotfix, this should be merged into 6.8-rcX and later backported into -stable trees. So it will go mm-hotfixes-unstable->mm-hotfixes-stable->mainline. So someone has to make this patch merge and work against latest mm-hotfixes-unstable.

The patch you sent appears to be based on linux-next, so it has dependencies upon mm-unstable patches which won't be merged into mainline until the next merge window.

So can you please redo and retest this against mm.git's mm-hotfixes-unstable branch? Then I'll try to figure out how to merge the gigentic pile of mm-unstable zswap changes on top of that.

Thanks.