On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 5:51 AM Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/28, Breno Leitao wrote: > > > > The list_for_each_entry_rcu() in filter_chain() uses > > rcu_read_lock_trace_held() as the lockdep condition, but the function > > holds consumer_rwsem, not the RCU trace lock. > > > > This gives me the following output when running with some locking debug > > option enabled: > > > > kernel/events/uprobes.c:1141 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > filter_chain > > register_for_each_vma > > uprobe_unregister_nosync > > __probe_event_disable > > > > Remove the incorrect lockdep condition since the rwsem provides > > sufficient protection for the list traversal. > > I hope Andrii will recheck, but looks obviously correct to me.
yeah, I did, and it also looks obviously correct to me, I didn't need to use rcu flavor there in the first place, I think. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> > > > Fixes: 87195a1ee332a ("uprobes: switch to RCU Tasks Trace flavor for better > > performance") > > This commit just change the __list_check_rcu() condition... > > Perhaps > Fixes: cc01bd044e6a ("uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly > under SRCU protection") > yep, this one is the earliest change adding unnecessary rcu flavor of list_for_each_entry > makes more sense? > > Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> >
