Re: [PATCH v2] mm/shmem, swap: fix race of truncate and swap entry split

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:55:59 +0800 Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> 
> The helper for shmem swap freeing is not handling the order of swap
> entries correctly. It uses xa_cmpxchg_irq to erase the swap entry, but
> it gets the entry order before that using xa_get_order without lock
> protection, and it may get an outdated order value if the entry is split
> or changed in other ways after the xa_get_order and before the
> xa_cmpxchg_irq.
> 
> And besides, the order could grow and be larger than expected, and cause
> truncation to erase data beyond the end border. For example, if the
> target entry and following entries are swapped in or freed, then a large
> folio was added in place and swapped out, using the same entry, the
> xa_cmpxchg_irq will still succeed, it's very unlikely to happen though.
> 
> To fix that, open code the Xarray cmpxchg and put the order retrieval
> and value checking in the same critical section. Also, ensure the order
> won't exceed the end border, skip it if the entry goes across the
> border.
> 
> Skipping large swap entries crosses the end border is safe here.
> Shmem truncate iterates the range twice, in the first iteration,
> find_lock_entries already filtered such entries, and shmem will
> swapin the entries that cross the end border and partially truncate the
> folio (split the folio or at least zero part of it). So in the second
> loop here, if we see a swap entry that crosses the end order, it must
> at least have its content erased already.
> 
> I observed random swapoff hangs and kernel panics when stress testing
> ZSWAP with shmem. After applying this patch, all problems are gone.
> 
> Fixes: 809bc86517cc ("mm: shmem: support large folio swap out")

September 2024.

Seems about right.  A researcher recently found that kernel bugs take two years
to fix.  https://pebblebed.com/blog/kernel-bugs?ref=itsfoss.com

>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -962,17 +962,29 @@ static void shmem_delete_from_page_cache(struct folio *folio, void *radswap)
>   * being freed).
>   */
>  static long shmem_free_swap(struct address_space *mapping,
> -			    pgoff_t index, void *radswap)
> +			    pgoff_t index, pgoff_t end, void *radswap)
>  {
> -	int order = xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index);
> -	void *old;
> +	XA_STATE(xas, &mapping->i_pages, index);
> +	unsigned int nr_pages = 0;
> +	pgoff_t base;
> +	void *entry;
>  
> -	old = xa_cmpxchg_irq(&mapping->i_pages, index, radswap, NULL, 0);
> -	if (old != radswap)
> -		return 0;
> -	swap_put_entries_direct(radix_to_swp_entry(radswap), 1 << order);
> +	xas_lock_irq(&xas);
> +	entry = xas_load(&xas);
> +	if (entry == radswap) {
> +		nr_pages = 1 << xas_get_order(&xas);
> +		base = round_down(xas.xa_index, nr_pages);
> +		if (base < index || base + nr_pages - 1 > end)
> +			nr_pages = 0;
> +		else
> +			xas_store(&xas, NULL);
> +	}
> +	xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
> +
> +	if (nr_pages)
> +		swap_put_entries_direct(radix_to_swp_entry(radswap), nr_pages);
>  
> -	return 1 << order;
> +	return nr_pages;
>  }
>  

What tree was this prepared against?

Both Linus mainline and mm.git have

: static long shmem_free_swap(struct address_space *mapping,
: 			    pgoff_t index, void *radswap)
: {
: 	int order = xa_get_order(&mapping->i_pages, index);
: 	void *old;
: 
: 	old = xa_cmpxchg_irq(&mapping->i_pages, index, radswap, NULL, 0);
: 	if (old != radswap)
: 		return 0;
: 	free_swap_and_cache_nr(radix_to_swp_entry(radswap), 1 << order);
: 
: 	return 1 << order;
: }

but that free_swap_and_cache_nr() call is absent from your tree.