Linux real-time development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Puranjay Mohan" <puranjay@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] rcu: Make Tiny call_rcu() safe to call from any context
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 12:37:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260805123713.3DF251F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260805122346.269445-3-puranjay@kernel.org>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Bypass of debug validation causes fatal RCU list corruption on double-free.
- [High] O(N) runqueue spinlock acquisitions cause severe interrupt latency during callback drain.
--

--- Patch [2]: [PATCH v3 2/6] rcu: Make Tiny call_rcu() safe to call from any context ---
commit 695767be85ec82f2457b846af53d8afe8fb742d1
Author: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>

rcu: Make Tiny call_rcu() safe to call from any context

This commit updates Tiny RCU's call_rcu() to defer callbacks when called
with interrupts disabled. It uses a lockless list and an irq_work to
re-issue them later, similar to Tree RCU.

> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> index dccccd6be9411..baffe660043f5 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tiny.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tiny.c

[ ... ]

> +static void rcu_do_enqueue(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> +{
> +	static atomic_t doublefrees;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	if (debug_rcu_head_queue(head)) {
> +		if (atomic_inc_return(&doublefrees) < 4) {
> +			pr_err("%s(): Double-freed CB %p->%pS()!!!  ", __func__, head, head->func);
> +			mem_dump_obj(head);
> +		}
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	head->func = func;
> +	head->next = NULL;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	*rcu_ctrlblk.curtail = head;
> +	rcu_ctrlblk.curtail = &head->next;
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	if (unlikely(is_idle_task(current))) {
> +		/* force scheduling for rcu_qs() */
> +		resched_cpu(0);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +static void __rcu_defer_drain(bool guard)
> +{
> +	struct llist_node *node, *next;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	/* Callbacks are unordered, so drain in llist order without reversing. */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	if (guard)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_defer_draining, true);
> +	llist_for_each_safe(node, next, llist_del_all(&rcu_defer_list)) {
> +		struct rcu_head *head = (struct rcu_head *)node;
> +
> +		head->next = NULL;
> +		rcu_do_enqueue(head, head->func);

[Severity: High]
Does this code cause severe interrupt latency during callback drain?

If a batch of RCU callbacks is deferred and the CPU subsequently goes idle,
__rcu_defer_drain() loops over the entire batch in hardirq context.

For each callback, rcu_do_enqueue() will call resched_cpu(0) because
current is the idle task.  Since resched_cpu() unconditionally takes the
runqueue spinlock, this results in an O(N) locking sequence in hardirq
context, which could lead to watchdog soft lockups.

> +	}
> +	if (guard)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(rcu_defer_draining, false);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

[ ... ]

> @@ -157,29 +250,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu);
>   */
>  void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
>  {
> -	static atomic_t doublefrees;
> -	unsigned long flags;
> -
> -	if (debug_rcu_head_queue(head)) {
> -		if (atomic_inc_return(&doublefrees) < 4) {
> -			pr_err("%s(): Double-freed CB %p->%pS()!!!  ", __func__, head, head->func);
> -			mem_dump_obj(head);
> -		}
> +	if (should_rcu_defer()) {
> +		call_rcu_defer(head, func);

[Severity: High]
Does moving the debug validation after the deferral bypass it during a
double-free?

If a subsystem double-frees an RCU callback while interrupts are disabled,
it will take this deferral path instead of checking debug_rcu_head_queue().

In call_rcu_defer():

	if (llist_add((struct llist_node *)head, &rcu_defer_list))

If the callback is already in the list, llist_add() modifies its next
pointer, creating a cycle in the lockless list.  Later, when the
irq_work drains the list, llist_for_each_safe() in __rcu_defer_drain()
will loop infinitely, causing a system hard lockup in hardirq context.

>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	head->func = func;
> -	head->next = NULL;
> -
> -	local_irq_save(flags);
> -	*rcu_ctrlblk.curtail = head;
> -	rcu_ctrlblk.curtail = &head->next;
> -	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +	/* An NMI reaching here entered with irqs enabled, so the enqueue can race. */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) && in_nmi());
>  
> -	if (unlikely(is_idle_task(current))) {
> -		/* force scheduling for rcu_qs() */
> -		resched_cpu(0);
> -	}
> +	rcu_do_enqueue(head, func);
>  }

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260805122346.269445-1-puranjay@kernel.org?part=2

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-05 12:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-05 12:23 [PATCH v3 0/6] rcu,srcu: Make call_rcu()/call_srcu() safe from any context Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] rcu: Make call_rcu() safe to call " Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-05 16:49   ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] rcu: Make Tiny " Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:37   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] srcu: Make call_srcu() " Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:35   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-06 14:04   ` Zqiang
2026-08-06 14:08     ` Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] srcu: Make Tiny " Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] rcutorture: Exercise ->call() from NMI context Puranjay Mohan
2026-08-05 12:23 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add a call_srcu() re-entry reproducer Puranjay Mohan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260805123713.3DF251F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=puranjay@kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox