The patch below does not apply to the 6.7-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 stable@vger.kernel.org.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.7.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to 'stable@vger.kernel.org' --in-reply-to '2024022610-amino-basically-add3@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.7.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
e3b63e966cac ("mm: zswap: fix missing folio cleanup in writeback race path") 96c7b0b42239 ("mm: return the folio from __read_swap_cache_async()") e947ba0bbf47 ("mm/zswap: cleanup zswap_writeback_entry()") 32acba4c0483 ("mm/zswap: refactor out __zswap_load()") c75f5c1e0f1d ("mm/zswap: reuse dstmem when decompress") b5ba474f3f51 ("zswap: shrink zswap pool based on memory pressure") a65b0e7607cc ("zswap: make shrinking memcg-aware")
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:51:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] mm: zswap: fix missing folio cleanup in writeback race path
In zswap_writeback_entry(), after we get a folio from __read_swap_cache_async(), we grab the tree lock again to check that the swap entry was not invalidated and recycled. If it was, we delete the folio we just added to the swap cache and exit.
However, __read_swap_cache_async() returns the folio locked when it is newly allocated, which is always true for this path, and the folio is ref'd. Make sure to unlock and put the folio before returning.
This was discovered by code inspection, probably because this path handles a race condition that should not happen often, and the bug would not crash the system, it will only strand the folio indefinitely.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240125085127.1327013-1-yosryahmed@google.com Fixes: 04fc7816089c ("mm: fix zswap writeback race condition") Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com Reviewed-by: Chengming Zhou zhouchengming@bytedance.com Acked-by: Johannes Weiner hannes@cmpxchg.org Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com Cc: Domenico Cerasuolo cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org
diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c index 350dd2fc8159..d2423247acfd 100644 --- a/mm/zswap.c +++ b/mm/zswap.c @@ -1440,6 +1440,8 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry, if (zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, swp_offset(entry->swpentry)) != entry) { spin_unlock(&tree->lock); delete_from_swap_cache(folio); + folio_unlock(folio); + folio_put(folio); return -ENOMEM; } spin_unlock(&tree->lock);
In zswap_writeback_entry(), after we get a folio from __read_swap_cache_async(), we grab the tree lock again to check that the swap entry was not invalidated and recycled. If it was, we delete the folio we just added to the swap cache and exit.
However, __read_swap_cache_async() returns the folio locked when it is newly allocated, which is always true for this path, and the folio is ref'd. Make sure to unlock and put the folio before returning.
This was discovered by code inspection, probably because this path handles a race condition that should not happen often, and the bug would not crash the system, it will only strand the folio indefinitely.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240125085127.1327013-1-yosryahmed@google.com Fixes: 04fc7816089c ("mm: fix zswap writeback race condition") Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com Reviewed-by: Chengming Zhou zhouchengming@bytedance.com Acked-by: Johannes Weiner hannes@cmpxchg.org Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com Cc: Domenico Cerasuolo cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org (cherry picked from commit e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d) Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com --- mm/zswap.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c index 74411dfdad925..b6f4a1a760578 100644 --- a/mm/zswap.c +++ b/mm/zswap.c @@ -1105,6 +1105,8 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry, if (zswap_rb_search(&tree->rbroot, swp_offset(entry->swpentry)) != entry) { spin_unlock(&tree->lock); delete_from_swap_cache(page_folio(page)); + unlock_page(page); + put_page(page); ret = -ENOMEM; goto fail; }
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:16:47PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
In zswap_writeback_entry(), after we get a folio from __read_swap_cache_async(), we grab the tree lock again to check that the swap entry was not invalidated and recycled. If it was, we delete the folio we just added to the swap cache and exit.
However, __read_swap_cache_async() returns the folio locked when it is newly allocated, which is always true for this path, and the folio is ref'd. Make sure to unlock and put the folio before returning.
This was discovered by code inspection, probably because this path handles a race condition that should not happen often, and the bug would not crash the system, it will only strand the folio indefinitely.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240125085127.1327013-1-yosryahmed@google.com Fixes: 04fc7816089c ("mm: fix zswap writeback race condition") Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com Reviewed-by: Chengming Zhou zhouchengming@bytedance.com Acked-by: Johannes Weiner hannes@cmpxchg.org Reviewed-by: Nhat Pham nphamcs@gmail.com Cc: Domenico Cerasuolo cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org (cherry picked from commit e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d) Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed yosryahmed@google.com
mm/zswap.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
Now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:30:10AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 6.7-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 stable@vger.kernel.org.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.7.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to 'stable@vger.kernel.org' --in-reply-to '2024022610-amino-basically-add3@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.7.y' HEAD^..
First time sending backports to stable. I think I slightly butchered the 6.1 and 6.6 patches. The first one has an extra `Change-Id` footer and no additional `Signed-off-by` (although my original one exists), while the latter has no 6.6.y prefix. I think I got 6.7 right tho :)
Greg, please let me know if I need to resend the backports for 6.1 and/or 6.6, and sorry for any inconvenience.
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:20:45PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:30:10AM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 6.7-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 stable@vger.kernel.org.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.7.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x e3b63e966cac0bf78aaa1efede1827a252815a1d # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to 'stable@vger.kernel.org' --in-reply-to '2024022610-amino-basically-add3@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.7.y' HEAD^..
First time sending backports to stable. I think I slightly butchered the 6.1 and 6.6 patches. The first one has an extra `Change-Id` footer and no additional `Signed-off-by` (although my original one exists), while the latter has no 6.6.y prefix. I think I got 6.7 right tho :)
Greg, please let me know if I need to resend the backports for 6.1 and/or 6.6, and sorry for any inconvenience.
Yes, please do, I have no idea what branches any of these are for :(
Please give me a hint somehow...
thanks,
greg k-h
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org