[v3] mm/zswap: invalidate old entry when store fail or !zswap_enabled

Commit Message

Chengming Zhou Feb. 7, 2024, 3:38 a.m. UTC

From: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>

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: <[e-mail]>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[e-mail]>
Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>
---
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(-)

Comments

Chris Li Feb. 7, 2024, 5:41 a.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:39 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> From: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>
>
> 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.

Thanks, I have been wondering about the cause of that for a while.

>
> 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: <[e-mail]>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[e-mail]>
> Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>
> ---
> 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(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index cd67f7f6b302..d9d8947d6761 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -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);
> +               VM_WARN_ON(zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry));

It seems there is only one path called zswap_rb_insert() and there is
no loop to repeat the insert any more. Can we have the
zswap_rb_insert() install the entry and return the dupentry? We can
still just call zswap_invalidate_entry() on the duplicate. The mapping
of the dupentry has been removed when  zswap_rb_insert() returns. That
will save a repeat lookup on the duplicate case.
After this change, the zswap_rb_insert() will map to the xarray
xa_store() pretty nicely.

Chris

>         }
>         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
>
>

Yosry Ahmed Feb. 7, 2024, 5:45 a.m. UTC | #2

> > @@ -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);
> > +               VM_WARN_ON(zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry));
>
> It seems there is only one path called zswap_rb_insert() and there is
> no loop to repeat the insert any more. Can we have the
> zswap_rb_insert() install the entry and return the dupentry? We can
> still just call zswap_invalidate_entry() on the duplicate. The mapping
> of the dupentry has been removed when  zswap_rb_insert() returns. That
> will save a repeat lookup on the duplicate case.
> After this change, the zswap_rb_insert() will map to the xarray
> xa_store() pretty nicely.

I brought this up in v1 [1]. We agreed to leave it as-is for now since
we expect the xarray conversion soon-ish. No need to update
zswap_rb_insert() only to replace it with xa_store() later anyway.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/

Chris Li Feb. 7, 2024, 5:52 a.m. UTC | #3

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:46 PM Yosry Ahmed <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -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);
> > > +               VM_WARN_ON(zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry));
> >
> > It seems there is only one path called zswap_rb_insert() and there is
> > no loop to repeat the insert any more. Can we have the
> > zswap_rb_insert() install the entry and return the dupentry? We can
> > still just call zswap_invalidate_entry() on the duplicate. The mapping
> > of the dupentry has been removed when  zswap_rb_insert() returns. That
> > will save a repeat lookup on the duplicate case.
> > After this change, the zswap_rb_insert() will map to the xarray
> > xa_store() pretty nicely.
>
> I brought this up in v1 [1]. We agreed to leave it as-is for now since
> we expect the xarray conversion soon-ish. No need to update
> zswap_rb_insert() only to replace it with xa_store() later anyway.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
>
Ah, thanks for the pointer. I miss your earlier reply.

Acked-by: Chris Li <[e-mail]>

Chris

Chengming Zhou Feb. 7, 2024, 11:36 a.m. UTC | #4

On 2024/2/7 11:38, [e-mail] wrote:
> From: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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: <[e-mail]>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[e-mail]>
> Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <[e-mail]>
> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <[e-mail]>
> ---
> 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(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index cd67f7f6b302..d9d8947d6761 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -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);
> +		VM_WARN_ON(zswap_rb_insert(&tree->rbroot, entry, &dupentry));

Oh, I just realized this is empty if !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, will post v4.

Thanks.

>  	}
>  	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:

Patch

diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
index cd67f7f6b302..d9d8947d6761 100644
--- a/mm/zswap.c
+++ b/mm/zswap.c
@@ -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);
+		VM_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: