From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Josef Bacik" <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/13] kprobes: Let Tasks RCU recognise tasks preempted in an optprobe jump window
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:16:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260910191634.5D7C21F00893@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260910-b4-rcu-tasks-preempt-qs-v1-4-d4469f4cc101@toxicpanda.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] Massive performance overhead in the kernel preemption fast-path due to unbounded hash table lookups.
- [High] kprobe_optimizer() frees kprobes without synchronize_rcu(), causing a Use-After-Free when get_kprobe() is called from irqentry_preempt() on idle CPUs.
--
commit c6c38cd5a975e6f9c2037bf63fa6d732d6cd1fab
Author: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
kprobes: Let Tasks RCU recognise tasks preempted in an optprobe jump window
This patch adds kprobe_in_optimized_region() to determine if an instruction
pointer falls within the bytes of an optimized kprobe. It then updates
rcu_tasks_ip_in_trampoline() to use this check, allowing Tasks RCU to
recognize and hold off grace periods for tasks preempted within these jump
windows.
> diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
> --- a/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
[ ... ]
> +bool kprobe_in_optimized_region(unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 1; i < MAX_OPTIMIZED_LENGTH / sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t); i++)
> + if (get_kprobe((kprobe_opcode_t *)addr - i))
[Severity: High]
Could this loop introduce significant overhead in the preemption fast-path?
On architectures like x86, this loop executes up to 18 times, querying the
kprobe hash table via get_kprobe() on each iteration. Since the hash table
can have long chains on systems with many active kprobes, this could result
in thousands of pointer dereferences during a preemption event.
Also, does this introduce a use-after-free risk for interrupted idle tasks?
kprobe_optimizer() unlinks kprobes and frees them after waiting only for
synchronize_rcu_tasks(). Because synchronize_rcu_tasks() explicitly ignores
idle tasks, an idle CPU that is interrupted could end up traversing the
kprobe_table here via get_kprobe() while the kprobe is concurrently freed,
as Tasks RCU will not wait for the idle task's traversal to finish.
> + return true;
> + return false;
> +}
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
[ ... ]
> bool rcu_tasks_ip_in_trampoline(unsigned long ip)
> {
> + if (kprobe_in_optimized_region(ip))
[Severity: High]
Is it safe to place this expensive check unconditionally at the start of this
function?
When CONFIG_RCU_TASKS_PREEMPT_QS is enabled, rcu_tasks_ip_in_trampoline()
is called on every kernel preemption via irqentry_preempt(). By placing
kprobe_in_optimized_region() before cheaper checks like
core_kernel_text(ip), every preemption event incurs the cost of the loop
and hash table lookups, which could severely degrade system performance.
> + return true;
> +
> if (core_kernel_text(ip))
> return arch_rcu_tasks_ip_in_trampoline(ip);
> return !is_module_text_address(ip);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260910-b4-rcu-tasks-preempt-qs-v1-0-d4469f4cc101@toxicpanda.com?part=4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-10 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-10 18:50 [PATCH RFC 00/13] rcu-tasks: let preemption outside trampolines be a quiescent state Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 01/13] rcu-tasks: Add per-task trampoline nesting count Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 02/13] entry: Pass pt_regs to irqentry_exit_cond_resched() Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 03/13] rcu-tasks: Hold trampoline nesting across irq-exit preemption in trampoline text Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 04/13] kprobes: Let Tasks RCU recognise tasks preempted in an optprobe jump window Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 19:16 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-10 22:46 ` Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 05/13] ftrace: Mark modules hosting direct-call trampolines for Tasks RCU Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 06/13] x86/ftrace: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in ftrace_caller Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 07/13] x86/kprobes: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in the optprobe template Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 08/13] bpf, x86: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in the BPF trampoline Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 09/13] arm64: ftrace: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in ftrace_caller Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 19:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-10 22:46 ` Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 10/13] bpf, arm64: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in the BPF trampoline Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 11/13] samples: ftrace: Maintain Tasks RCU trampoline nesting in direct-call trampolines Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 12/13] rcutorture: Bracket Tasks RCU readers with trampoline nesting Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 18:50 ` [PATCH RFC 13/13] rcu-tasks: Treat preemption outside trampolines as a quiescent state Josef Bacik
2026-09-10 19:44 ` [PATCH RFC 00/13] rcu-tasks: let preemption outside trampolines be " Steven Rostedt
2026-09-10 22:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20260910191634.5D7C21F00893@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.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