Re: [PATCH v13 19/22] mm: zswap: Per-CPU acomp_ctx resources exist from pool creation to deletion.

[Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 12:55:10AM +0000, Sridhar, Kanchana P wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:24 PM
> > To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@intel.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org;
> > hannes@cmpxchg.org; nphamcs@gmail.com; chengming.zhou@linux.dev;
> > usamaarif642@gmail.com; ryan.roberts@arm.com; 21cnbao@gmail.com;
> > ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com; akpm@linux-foundation.org;
> > senozhatsky@chromium.org; sj@kernel.org; kasong@tencent.com; linux-
> > crypto@vger.kernel.org; herbert@gondor.apana.org.au;
> > davem@davemloft.net; clabbe@baylibre.com; ardb@kernel.org;
> > ebiggers@google.com; surenb@google.com; Accardi, Kristen C
> > <kristen.c.accardi@intel.com>; Gomes, Vinicius <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>;
> > Feghali, Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@intel.com>; Gopal, Vinodh
> > <vinodh.gopal@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 19/22] mm: zswap: Per-CPU acomp_ctx resources
> > exist from pool creation to deletion.
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 01:12:32AM -0800, Kanchana P Sridhar wrote:
> > 
> > The subject can be shortened to:
> > 
> > "mm: zswap: Tie per-CPU acomp_ctx lifetime to the pool"
> > 
> > > This patch simplifies the zswap_pool's per-CPU acomp_ctx resource
> > > management. Similar to the per-CPU acomp_ctx itself, the per-CPU
> > > acomp_ctx's resources' (acomp, req, buffer) lifetime will also be from
> > > pool creation to pool deletion. These resources will persist through CPU
> > > hotplug operations instead of being destroyed/recreated. The
> > > zswap_cpu_comp_dead() teardown callback has been deleted from the call
> > > to cpuhp_setup_state_multi(CPUHP_MM_ZSWP_POOL_PREPARE). As a
> > result, CPU
> > > offline hotplug operations will be no-ops as far as the acomp_ctx
> > > resources are concerned.
> > 
> > Currently, per-CPU acomp_ctx are allocated on pool creation and/or CPU
> > hotplug, and destroyed on pool destruction or CPU hotunplug. This
> > complicates the lifetime management to save memory while a CPU is
> > offlined, which is not very common.
> > 
> > Simplify lifetime management by allocating per-CPU acomp_ctx once on
> > pool creation (or CPU hotplug for CPUs onlined later), and keeping them
> > allocated until the pool is destroyed.
> > 
> > >
> > > This commit refactors the code from zswap_cpu_comp_dead() into a
> > > new function acomp_ctx_dealloc() that is called to clean up acomp_ctx
> > > resources from:
> > >
> > > 1) zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() when an error is encountered,
> > > 2) zswap_pool_create() when an error is encountered, and
> > > 3) from zswap_pool_destroy().
> > 
> > 
> > Refactor cleanup code from zswap_cpu_comp_dead() into
> > acomp_ctx_dealloc() to be used elsewhere.
> > 
> > >
> > > The main benefit of using the CPU hotplug multi state instance startup
> > > callback to allocate the acomp_ctx resources is that it prevents the
> > > cores from being offlined until the multi state instance addition call
> > > returns.
> > >
> > >   From Documentation/core-api/cpu_hotplug.rst:
> > >
> > >     "The node list add/remove operations and the callback invocations are
> > >      serialized against CPU hotplug operations."
> > >
> > > Furthermore, zswap_[de]compress() cannot contend with
> > > zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() because:
> > >
> > >   - During pool creation/deletion, the pool is not in the zswap_pools
> > >     list.
> > >
> > >   - During CPU hot[un]plug, the CPU is not yet online, as Yosry pointed
> > >     out. zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() will be run on a control CPU,
> > >     since CPUHP_MM_ZSWP_POOL_PREPARE is in the PREPARE section of
> > "enum
> > >     cpuhp_state". Thanks Yosry for sharing this observation!
> > >
> > >   In both these cases, any recursions into zswap reclaim from
> > >   zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() will be handled by the old pool.
> > >
> > > The above two observations enable the following simplifications:
> > >
> > >  1) zswap_cpu_comp_prepare(): CPU cannot be offlined. Reclaim cannot
> > use
> > >     the pool. Considerations for mutex init/locking and handling
> > >     subsequent CPU hotplug online-offline-online:
> > >
> > >     Should we lock the mutex of current CPU's acomp_ctx from start to
> > >     end? It doesn't seem like this is required. The CPU hotplug
> > >     operations acquire a "cpuhp_state_mutex" before proceeding, hence
> > >     they are serialized against CPU hotplug operations.
> > >
> > >     If the process gets migrated while zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() is
> > >     running, it will complete on the new CPU. In case of failures, we
> > >     pass the acomp_ctx pointer obtained at the start of
> > >     zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() to acomp_ctx_dealloc(), which again, can
> > >     only undergo migration. There appear to be no contention scenarios
> > >     that might cause inconsistent values of acomp_ctx's members. Hence,
> > >     it seems there is no need for mutex_lock(&acomp_ctx->mutex) in
> > >     zswap_cpu_comp_prepare().
> > >
> > >     Since the pool is not yet on zswap_pools list, we don't need to
> > >     initialize the per-CPU acomp_ctx mutex in zswap_pool_create(). This
> > >     has been restored to occur in zswap_cpu_comp_prepare().
> > >
> > >     zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() checks upfront if acomp_ctx->acomp is
> > >     valid. If so, it returns success. This should handle any CPU
> > >     hotplug online-offline transitions after pool creation is done.
> > >
> > >  2) CPU offline vis-a-vis zswap ops: Let's suppose the process is
> > >     migrated to another CPU before the current CPU is dysfunctional. If
> > >     zswap_[de]compress() holds the acomp_ctx->mutex lock of the offlined
> > >     CPU, that mutex will be released once it completes on the new
> > >     CPU. Since there is no teardown callback, there is no possibility of
> > >     UAF.
> > >
> > >  3) Pool creation/deletion and process migration to another CPU:
> > >
> > >     - During pool creation/deletion, the pool is not in the zswap_pools
> > >       list. Hence it cannot contend with zswap ops on that CPU. However,
> > >       the process can get migrated.
> > >
> > >       Pool creation --> zswap_cpu_comp_prepare()
> > >                                 --> process migrated:
> > >                                     * CPU offline: no-op.
> > >                                     * zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() continues
> > >                                       to run on the new CPU to finish
> > >                                       allocating acomp_ctx resources for
> > >                                       the offlined CPU.
> > >
> > >       Pool deletion --> acomp_ctx_dealloc()
> > >                                 --> process migrated:
> > >                                     * CPU offline: no-op.
> > >                                     * acomp_ctx_dealloc() continues
> > >                                       to run on the new CPU to finish
> > >                                       de-allocating acomp_ctx resources
> > >                                       for the offlined CPU.
> > >
> > >  4) Pool deletion vis-a-vis CPU onlining:
> > >     The call to cpuhp_state_remove_instance() cannot race with
> > >     zswap_cpu_comp_prepare() because of hotplug synchronization.
> > >
> > > This patch deletes acomp_ctx_get_cpu_lock()/acomp_ctx_put_unlock().
> > > Instead, zswap_[de]compress() directly call
> > > mutex_[un]lock(&acomp_ctx->mutex).
> > 
> > I am not sure why all of this is needed. We should just describe why
> > it's safe to drop holding the mutex while initializing per-CPU
> > acomp_ctx:
> > 
> > It is no longer possible for CPU hotplug to race against allocation or
> > usage of per-CPU acomp_ctx, as they are only allocated once before the
> > pool can be used, and remain allocated as long as the pool is used.
> > Hence, stop holding the lock during acomp_ctx initialization, and drop
> > acomp_ctx_get_cpu_lock()//acomp_ctx_put_unlock().
> 
> Hi Yosry,
> 
> Thanks for these comments. IIRC, there was quite a bit of technical
> discussion analyzing various what-ifs, that we were able to answer
> adequately. The above is a nice summary of the outcome, however,
> I think it would help the next time this topic is re-visited to have a log
> of the "why" and how races/UAF scenarios are being considered and
> addressed by the solution. Does this sound Ok?

How about using the summarized version in the commit log and linking to
the thread with the discussion?