> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 07:47:54AM +0000, Li,Rongqing(ACG CCN) wrote: > > > > > > > From: Li RongQing <[email protected]> > > > > > > In commit 1728ab54b4be ("x86/sgx: Add a page reclaimer") (v5.11), > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu() was used to traverse the enclave's mm_list. > > > However, this is incorrect because the list is protected by a > > > Sleepable RCU (SRCU) lock (encl->srcu). > > > > > > Since commit 28875945ba98 ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU > > > reader > > > checking") (v5.4), RCU lockdep checking has become stricter. When > > > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU is enabled, using the standard > > > list_for_each_entry_rcu() while only holding an SRCU lock triggers > > > "suspicious RCU usage" false positive warnings, as it does not recognize > > > SRCU > read-side critical sections. > > > > > > Fix this by switching to list_for_each_entry_srcu(), which was > > > introduced specifically for this purpose in commit ae2212a7216b > > > ("rculist: Introduce list/hlist_for_each_entry_srcu() macros") (v5.10). > > > This correctly associates the traversal with the SRCU lock and > > > eliminates the lockdep warnings. > > > > > > Fixes: 1728ab54b4be ("x86/sgx: Add a page reclaimer") > > > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <[email protected]> > > > Acked-by: Kai Huang <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > > Ping > > > > thanks > > > > [Li,Rongqing] > > > > > > > > > Diff with v1: rewrite changelog > > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c | 12 ++++++++---- > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 3 ++- > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c index ac60ebd..91362d7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c > > > @@ -822,7 +822,8 @@ static struct sgx_encl_mm > > > *sgx_encl_find_mm(struct sgx_encl *encl, > > > > > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp, &encl->mm_list, list) { > > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(tmp, &encl->mm_list, list, > > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&encl->srcu)) { > > > if (tmp->mm == mm) { > > > encl_mm = tmp; > > > break; > > > @@ -933,7 +934,8 @@ const cpumask_t *sgx_encl_cpumask(struct > > > sgx_encl > > > *encl) > > > > > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) { > > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list, > > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&encl->srcu)) { > > > if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm)) > > > continue; > > > > > > @@ -1018,7 +1020,8 @@ static struct mem_cgroup > > > *sgx_encl_get_mem_cgroup(struct sgx_encl *encl) > > > */ > > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) { > > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list, > > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&encl->srcu)) { > > > if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm)) > > > continue; > > > > > > @@ -1212,7 +1215,8 @@ void sgx_zap_enclave_ptes(struct sgx_encl > > > *encl, unsigned long addr) > > > > > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) { > > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list, > > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&encl->srcu)) { > > > if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm)) > > > continue; > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c index 38b7fd2..581e0c4 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c > > > @@ -120,7 +120,8 @@ static bool sgx_reclaimer_age(struct > > > sgx_epc_page > > > *epc_page) > > > > > > idx = srcu_read_lock(&encl->srcu); > > > > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list) { > > > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(encl_mm, &encl->mm_list, list, > > > + srcu_read_lock_held(&encl->srcu)) { > > > if (!mmget_not_zero(encl_mm->mm)) > > > continue; > > > > > > -- > > > 2.9.4 > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> >
Thanks for your review. And ping [Li,Rongqing] > BR, Jarkko
