[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241108090023.GE38786@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 10:00:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: get RCU trace lock before list iteration
On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 09:14:45AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Acquire RCU trace lock in filter_chain() to protect
> list_for_each_entry_rcu() iteration, protecting the list iteration in a
> RCU read section.
>
> Prior to this fix, list_for_each_entry_srcu() was called without holding
> the required lock, triggering warnings when RCU_PROVING is enabled:
>
> kernel/events/uprobes.c:937 RCU-list traversed without holding the required lock!!
>
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
> Fixes: cc01bd044e6a ("uprobes: travers uprobe's consumer list locklessly under SRCU protection")
> ---
> kernel/events/uprobes.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index fa04b14a7d72353adc440742016b813da6c812d2..afdaa45a43ac3948f7983175eda808c989e8738a 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -1103,11 +1103,13 @@ static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
> bool ret = false;
>
> down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
> + rcu_read_lock_trace();
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't uprobe->consumer list protected by
uprobe->consumer_rwsem, which we hold for reading?
That is, AFAICT this is a false positive and we should be doing this
instead, no?
diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
index a76ddc5fc982..a5405e9ef9f5 100644
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -1104,7 +1104,7 @@ static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct *mm)
bool ret = false;
down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
- list_for_each_entry_rcu(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node, rcu_read_lock_trace_held()) {
+ list_for_each_entry(uc, &uprobe->consumers, cons_node) {
ret = consumer_filter(uc, mm);
if (ret)
break;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists