Re: [PATCH bpf v1 1/2] bpf: Fix grace period wait for tracepoint bpf_link

Puranjay Mohan
2026-03-30T10:00:49Z

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 05:21, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Recently, tracepoints were switched from using disabled preemption
>> (which acts as RCU read section) to SRCU-fast when they are not
>> faultable. This means that to do a proper grace period wait for programs
>> running in such tracepoints, we must use SRCU's grace period wait.
>> This is only for non-faultable tracepoints, faultable ones continue
>> using RCU Tasks Trace.
>>
>> However, bpf_link_free() currently does call_rcu() for all cases when
>> the link is non-sleepable (hence, for tracepoints, non-faultable). Fix
>> this by doing a call_srcu() grace period wait.
>>
>> As far RCU Tasks Trace gp -> RCU gp chaining is concerned, it is deemed
>> unnecessary for tracepoint programs. The link and program are either
>> accessed under RCU Tasks Trace protection, or SRCU-fast protection now.
>>
>> The earlier logic of chaining both RCU Tasks Trace and RCU gp waits was
>> to generalize the logic, even if it conceded an extra RCU gp wait,
>> however that is unnecessary for tracepoints even before this change.
>> In practice no cost was paid since rcu_trace_implies_rcu_gp() was always
>> true.
>>
>> Hence we need not chain any SRCU gp waits after RCU Tasks Trace.
>
> ... or chaining RCP gp after SRCU gp, rather, the commit log should
> probably say that instead. The above might be confusing.
> But more eyes on this would be great, I went back and read a few
> discussions on why we were chaining RCU gp after RCU-tt gp and
> couldn't convince myself it was necessary for the tracepoint path.

Yeah the commit message is a bit hard to follow, let me try to lay out
why chaining isn't needed for either case, let me know if you agree with
this analysis:

For non-faultable tracepoints (the call_srcu path):

The tracepoint dispatch macro in __DECLARE_TRACE does:

guard(srcu_fast_notrace)(&tracepoint_srcu);
__DO_TRACE_CALL(name, args);

which calls into __bpf_trace_##call, which calls bpf_trace_runN, and
that ends up in __bpf_trace_run() where we have:

struct bpf_prog *prog = link->link.prog;
...
rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate();
...
run_ctx.bpf_cookie = link->cookie;
bpf_prog_run(prog, args);
...
rcu_read_unlock_migrate();

Both the link dereference (link->link.prog) and the
rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate() happen inside the SRCU-fast read section
from the tracepoint macro. So classic RCU is nested inside SRCU-fast
here. When the SRCU grace period completes, all in-flight SRCU-fast
readers have finished, which means all their nested classic RCU read
sections have also finished. No need to chain a classic RCU GP after
the SRCU GP.

For faultable tracepoints (the call_rcu_tasks_trace path):

__DECLARE_TRACE_SYSCALL uses guard(rcu_tasks_trace)() instead of
SRCU-fast, so SRCU isn't involved at all on this path. The link and
program are accessed exclusively under RCU Tasks Trace protection.
A tasks trace GP is sufficient on its own, and since tasks trace GP
implies classic RCU GP, there's nothing to chain.

So in both cases, the outermost protection (SRCU-fast or tasks trace)
is what we wait for in bpf_link_free(), and the inner
rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate() in __bpf_trace_run() is subsumed by that
outer GP wait.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Puranjay