On 2025/9/4 12:29 Masami Hiramatsu <mhira...@kernel.org> write:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 11:37:35 +0800
> Menglong Dong <menglong.d...@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> > On 2025/9/3 12:22 Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> write:
> > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 05:50:32PM +0800, menglong.d...@linux.dev wrote:
> > > > On 2025/9/2 17:17 Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> write:
> > > > > Menglong Dong <dong...@chinatelecom.cn> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > > > > > index fb127fa95f21..fece0f849c1c 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/fprobe.c
> > > > > > @@ -269,7 +269,9 @@ static int fprobe_entry(struct ftrace_graph_ent
> > > > > > *trace, struct fgraph_ops *gops,
> > > > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!fregs))
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > > head = rhltable_lookup(&fprobe_ip_table, &func,
> > > > > > fprobe_rht_params);
> > > > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > > reserved_words = 0;
> > > > > > rhl_for_each_entry_rcu(node, pos, head, hlist) {
> > > > > > if (node->addr != func)
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually this isn't quite right. I know that it is a false-positive
> > > > > so that it's actually safe, but if you're going to mark it with
> > > > > rcu_read_lock, it should cover both the lookup as well as the
> > > > > dereference which happens in the loop rhl_for_each_entry_rcu.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I understand. The rcu_read_lock() here is totally used to
> > > > suppress the suspicious rcu usage warning, not for the protection.
> > > > So I used it just for the rhltable_lookup() to reduce the impact.
> > > > Maybe I should add some comment for it.
> > >
> > > My point is that after a lookup you will be doing some sort of a
> > > dereference on the RCU pointer. That would cause exactly the same
> > > splat that rhltable_lookup itself generated.
> > >
> > > For example, rhl_for_each_entry_rcu should have created the same
> > > warning, but it doesn't because for some reason it is using
> > > rcu_dereference_raw. I'll need to dig up the history of this
> > > to see if there is a good reason for it to not warn.
> >
> > Yeah, I understand what you mean. I noticed this, and that's why
> > I added the rcu_read_lock() for rhashtable_lookup() only.
> >
> > Maybe it is to obtain better performance? Just guess ;)
> > And hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() also uses rcu_dereference_raw().
>
> Hi Menglong, if you update the patch to use guard(rcu)() because
> head is used repeatedly in fprobe_entry(), I can replace it.
Of course, with pleasure. I can send a new version of this
patch with guard(rcu)() instead.
>
> Thank you,
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Menglong Dong
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > --
> > > Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
> > > Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
> > > PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org>
>
