On 17 October 2026 21:04:37 BST, "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 06:49:41PM +0100, Bradley Morgan wrote: >> On 17 October 2026 18:46:25 BST, "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 12:16:48PM +0100, Bradley Morgan wrote: >> >> On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <[email protected]> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <[email protected]> >> >wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the >> >> >> > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces >> >> >> > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all >> >> >> > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However, >> >> >> > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning >> >> >> > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context >> >> >> > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in >> >> >> > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short >> >> >> > grace period" warning. >> >> >> > >> >> >> NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the >> >system >> >> >> with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would >reserve >> >> >that >> >> >> for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to >notify >> >> >> the user. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a >heavy >> >> >edge >> >> >> case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for. >> >> > >> >> >Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the >> >> >WARN_ONCE() >> >> >not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help >us >> >> >troubleshoot >> >> >UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period. >> >> > >> >> >or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to >> >> >replace >> >> >alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs. >> >> > >> >> >Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the >> >opinions >> >> >of others. >> >> >> >> Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions: >> >> >> >> Here is the TL;DR >> >> >> >> My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace >> >> happens, >> >> it falls back. >> >> >> >> >> >> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# git diff kernel/rcu >> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644 >> >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { } >> >> // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code. >> >> >> >> // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch. >> >> -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work) >> >> +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct >*work) >> >> { >> >> } >> >> >> >> // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period. >> >> +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info) >> >> +{ >> >> +} >> >> + >> >> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp) >> >> { >> >> + int cpu; >> >> rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask); >> >> - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude); >> >> + cpus_read_lock(); >> >> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) >> >> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, >NULL, >> >1); >> >> + cpus_read_unlock(); >> >> } >> >> >> >> static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t >> >func); >> >> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# >> >> >> >> On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config. >> > >> >That is surprising, given that when I run your patch shown above on my >> >x86 laptop, rcutorture reports a too-short grace period within 20 >seconds. >> >> Odd! I definitely ran it for 12 hours, on PowerPC, so this is certainly >odd > >Those who care are free run it themselves on the systems of their choice.
root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/res/2026.10.15-19.45.43/RUDE01# uname -a && uname Linux p10-linux-brads 7.0.0-34-generic #34-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Sep 2 16:05:10 UTC 2026 ppc64le GNU/Linux Linux root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/res/2026.10.15-19.45.43/RUDE01# tail -n 20 console.log [43269.029077][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43269.033954][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43282.341070][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43282.345268][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43295.653087][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43295.657260][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43308.965081][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43308.969151][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43322.277071][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43322.281345][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43335.589160][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43335.593159][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43348.901077][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43348.905165][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43362.213069][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43362.217298][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43375.525085][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43375.529207][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode [43388.837074][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: Start of episode [43388.841160][ T73] tasks-rude-torture: rcu_torture_read_exit: End of episode root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/res/2026.10.15-19.45.43/RUDE01# I certainly ran it :( > > Thanx, Paul > >> >> If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my >authorship, >> >or >> >> my c-d-b. >> >> >> >> Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d >> >> >> >> BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Thanks >> >> >Zqiang >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so, >could >> >> >you >> >> >> tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;) >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <[email protected]> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++- >> >> >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> >> > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644 >> >> >> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> >> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h >> >> >> > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct >> >work_struct >> >> >*work) >> >> >> > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp) >> >> >> > { >> >> >> > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask); >> >> >> > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude); >> >> >> > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude), >> >> >> > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected >behavior!!!\n", >> >> >rtp->name); >> >> >> > >> >> >> Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see >> >above. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > } >> >> >> > >> >> >> > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, >> >rcu_callback_t >> >> >> > func); >> >> >> > >> >> >> --- Thanks! >> >> >> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- Thanks! >> >> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds >> >> --- Thanks! >> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds --- Thanks! "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
