linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: fprobe: fix suspicious rcu usage in fprobe

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20250905143336.85682a1443ed998137bee0b7@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:33:36 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing: fprobe: fix suspicious rcu usage in
 fprobe_entry

On Thu,  4 Sep 2025 14:27:29 +0800
Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:

> rcu_read_lock() is not needed in fprobe_entry, but rcu_dereference_check()
> is used in rhltable_lookup(), which causes suspicious RCU usage warning:
> 
>   WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>   6.17.0-rc1-00001-gdfe0d675df82 #1 Tainted: G S
>   -----------------------------
>   include/linux/rhashtable.h:602 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>   ......
>   stack backtrace:
>   CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 4652 Comm: ftracetest Tainted: G S
>   Tainted: [S]=CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, [I]=FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND
>   Hardware name: Dell Inc. OptiPlex 7040/0Y7WYT, BIOS 1.1.1 10/07/2015
>   Call Trace:
>    <TASK>
>    dump_stack_lvl+0x7c/0x90
>    lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x14f/0x1c0
>    __rhashtable_lookup+0x1e0/0x260
>    ? __pfx_kernel_clone+0x10/0x10
>    fprobe_entry+0x9a/0x450
>    ? __lock_acquire+0x6b0/0xca0
>    ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
>    ? __pfx_fprobe_entry+0x10/0x10
>    ? __pfx_kernel_clone+0x10/0x10
>    ? lock_acquire+0x14c/0x2d0
>    ? __might_fault+0x74/0xc0
>    function_graph_enter_regs+0x2a0/0x550
>    ? __do_sys_clone+0xb5/0x100
>    ? __pfx_function_graph_enter_regs+0x10/0x10
>    ? _copy_to_user+0x58/0x70
>    ? __pfx_kernel_clone+0x10/0x10
>    ? __x64_sys_rt_sigprocmask+0x114/0x180
>    ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigprocmask+0x10/0x10
>    ? __pfx_kernel_clone+0x10/0x10
>    ftrace_graph_func+0x87/0xb0
> 
> As we discussed in [1], fix this by using guard(rcu)() in fprobe_entry()
> to protect the rhltable_lookup() and rhl_for_each_entry_rcu() with
> rcu_read_lock and suppress this warning.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250829021436.19982-1-dongml2@chinatelecom.cn/ [1]
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202508281655.54c87330-lkp@intel.com
> Fixes: dfe0d675df82 ("tracing: fprobe: use rhltable for fprobe_ip_table")
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dongml2@...natelecom.cn>

Looks good to me. Let me pick this to probes/for-next.

Thanks!

> ---
> v2:
> - use guard(rcu)() instead of rcu_read_lock()
> ---
>  kernel/trace/fprobe.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> index fb127fa95f21..6a205903b1ed 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> @@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ static int fprobe_entry(struct ftrace_graph_ent *trace, struct fgraph_ops *gops,
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!fregs))
>  		return 0;
>  
> +	guard(rcu)();
>  	head = rhltable_lookup(&fprobe_ip_table, &func, fprobe_rht_params);
>  	reserved_words = 0;
>  	rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(node, pos, head, hlist) {
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>