On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 5:04 PM Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 08:28:28AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 09:25:02 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 11:29:13PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Here is an RFC patch series which removes standard RCU read lock > > > > (guard(rcu) and rcu_read_lock()) from fprobe callback paths > > > > by switching fprobe and BPF multi-kprobe to Tasks-Rude RCU. > > > > > > > > Motivation & Problem > > > > ==================== > > > > > > > > Currently, fprobe entry and exit callbacks (fprobe_fgraph_entry, > > > > fprobe_return, and fprobe_ftrace_entry) execute in the tracing hot > > > > path where preemption is disabled. > > > > > > > > However, fprobe was forced to wrap hash lookups with guard(rcu)() and > > > > rcu_read_lock() because: > > > > > > > > - rhashtable defers bucket table deallocation using standard RCU > > > > - unregister_fprobe() and BPF waited for a standard RCU grace period > > > > > > > > Taking standard RCU read locks in the tracing fast path introduces > > > > several drawbacks: > > > > > > > > 1. Unnecessary Runtime Overhead: > > > > Every probe hit manipulates current->rcu_read_lock_nesting with > > > > memory barriers, and rcu_read_unlock() adds conditional branches > > > > to check for special quiescent processing. > > > > On debug kernels with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y or CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y, > > > > this additionally acquires and releases lockdep maps on every hit, > > > > introducing severe lockdep hashing overhead and tracer recursion > > > > risks. > > > > > > > > 2. Fragile Dependency on rcu_is_watching(): > > > > Standard RCU treats idle CPUs (and user-space on nohz_full CPUs) as > > > > Extended Quiescent States (EQS). If a function is traced while > > > > rcu_is_watching() is false, standard RCU is blind to the read-side > > > > critical section. In such contexts, synchronize_rcu() does not wait > > > > for the reader (risking Use-After-Free), and lockdep emits an > > > > "RCU-illegal: rcu_read_lock() used while not watching!" warning. > > > > To avoid this, ftrace callbacks normally require FTRACE_OPS_FL_RCU, > > > > adding extra trampoline check overhead. > > > > > > > > 3. Asymmetric Synchronization with fprobe_return(): > > > > fprobe_return() executes under preempt_disable_notrace() without > > > > holding rcu_read_lock(). Prior to this series, unregister_fprobe() > > > > only waited on synchronize_rcu(), which does NOT wait for pure > > > > preempt-disabled sections, leaving a potential Use-After-Free window > > > > during probe unregistration. > > > > > > > > I've tried to fix the last UAF with simply introducing guard(rcu)()[1] > > > > but Sashiko found the 2nd problem [2]. So I decided to implement this > > > > series. > > > > > > Unless I am missing something subtle, Sashiko needs to be taught a > > > little bit more about RCU. Preemption-disabled regions of code really > > > are valid RCU readers. If you have a reproducer showing that this is > > > not the case in some situation, that would be a bug in RCU. > > > > Thanks for the clarification! > > So I think we can replace rcu_read_lock() with > > rcu_read_lock_sched_notrace()? > > (also, maybe we need to add rcu_is_watching() check) > > That would work, and yes, you are quite right that if !rcu_is_watching(), > RCU is studiously ignoring you completely, no matter what your preemption > state is. > > > Current code may involves lockdep in fprobe, that is not good. > > Agreed, that could be problematic in any number of contexts. ;-) > > > BTW, if we want to trace some code in extended quiescent state, do we > > still need this Tasks-Rude RCU? > > Well, you need something other than vanilla RCU, anyway. And Tasks Rude > RCU is one candidate, though it is also a candidate that might annoy > people wishing to minimize IPIs. >
Would RCU Tasks Trace be a better candidate given uprobes and sleepable BPF depends on it? Would it work here? > Thanx, Paul > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Adding Roman Gushchin and Chris Mason on CC for their thoughts. > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/179055575009.241711.6358052647499787191.stgit@devnote2/ > > > > [2] > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Solution: Tasks-Rude RCU > > > > ======================== > > > > > > > > Because fprobe callbacks already run strictly within preempt-disabled > > > > contexts, we can transition fprobe and its deferred table reclamation > > > > to Tasks-Rude RCU: > > > > > > > > - Tasks-Rude RCU detects grace periods via schedule_on_each_cpu(), > > > > forcing a schedule on every online CPU. This guarantees that all > > > > preempt-disabled sections that began prior to the grace period have > > > > completed before memory is reclaimed. > > > > - Unlike standard RCU, Tasks-Rude RCU does not rely on dyntick-idle / > > > > EQS tracking. It does NOT require rcu_is_watching() to be true and > > > > does not trigger lockdep warnings in pre-RCU/idle execution paths. > > > > - Within fprobe, guard(rcu)() is replaced with > > > > guard(rcu_sched_notrace)(), > > > > reducing the lookup lock to pure, non-tracing preempt counter > > > > increments without lockdep or RCU state manipulation. > > > > > > > > Feedback and suggestions from RCU, BPF, and tracing maintainers are > > > > welcome! > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > --- > > > > base-commit: 5bfa9f1a9dcb6ecb607adbc1c0226605c972935b > > > > > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) (3): > > > > rcu/tasks: Export call_rcu_tasks_rude() > > > > rhashtable: Add use_tasks_rude parameter to defer bucket table > > > > free > > > > fprobe: Switch fprobe and BPF kprobe-multi to Tasks-Rude RCU > > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 6 +++ > > > > include/linux/rhashtable-types.h | 2 + > > > > kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 2 + > > > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 8 ++--- > > > > kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 66 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > > lib/rhashtable.c | 5 ++- > > > > 6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]> > > > > > > -- > > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
