On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 17:40:55 +0800 Michael Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> event_define_fields() (pri=1 MODULE_STATE_COMING notifier, locked by > event_mutex) populates class->fields via list_add(), while > update_event_fields() (called from the pri=0 notifier path via > trace_event_update_all) traverses class->fields protected only by > trace_event_sem. These are two different locks guarding the same > data structure, so during cross-module loading a reader on one CPU can > observe partially initialized list nodes being concurrently added by a > writer on another CPU. > > On arm64 with weak memory ordering, __list_add() writes to two > different cache lines: > > next->prev = new; // (1) ordinary store > new->next = next; // (2) ordinary store > new->prev = prev; // (3) ordinary store > WRITE_ONCE(prev->next, new); // (4) release store > > The store buffer can drain (2) and (4) independently since they target > different cache lines. A remote CPU may observe (4) before (2): it > sees prev->next pointing to the new node, but the new node's link.next > is still zero (kmem_cache_alloc zero-initialized via KMEM_CACHE with > SLAB_PANIC). Since offsetof(struct ftrace_event_field, link) == 0, > list_for_each_entry() derives field == NULL from link.next == 0 and > crashes at field->type (offset 0x18): The above description is way too verbose. What exactly is the race? Was the above written by AI? It looks like it . I already tested it but when I went to write the log for Linus, I realized this description isn't acceptable for the commit itself. -- Steve
