From: Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tracing: Fix race between update_event_fields and, event_define_fields
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7b0e5a6-c38d-634e-4353-6d1bb5dcd12e@allwinnertech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260811090045.2a3cbed9@gandalf.local.home>
On 8/11/2026 9:00 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This is still way too verbose. Is this AI written? If so, AI is *not* your friend.
This commit was written by me, not by AI. I apologize for wasting your time. Thank you for rewriting the change.
> Why are the priorities of the notifiers important here?
I probably wanted to describe the entire process, so I've gone on to say too much.
> Less is more when it comes to describing a bug.
Got it.
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:00:05 +0800
> Michael Wu <michael@allwinnertech.com> wrote:
>
>>> What does the above mean? Are you loading two modules at the same time?
>> Two modules (A and B) are loaded simultaneously on different CPUs. On the arm64,
>> when CPU0's trace_module_notify [pri=1] and CPU1's trace_module_notify [pri=0]
>> simultaneously perform operations on call_A, because they are in different cache lines,
>> CPU1 may observe WRITE_ONCE(head->next, &f->link) in step (4) before f->link.next=next in step (2).
>> At this time, CPU1 reads an uninitialized f->link.next and performs an operation that causes to crash.
>
> This is still way too verbose. Is this AI written? If so, AI is *not* your friend.
>
>
>>
>>> What does "pri=X notifier" mean? What function calls are these coming from?
>> `pri=X notifier` represents `trace_events.c:trace_module_notify [pri=1]` and `trace.c:trace_module_notify [pri=0]`, respectively.
>
> Why are the priorities of the notifiers important here?
>
> I honestly didn't know one was allowed to load two modules at the same time
> and thought that it the module logic would prevent that. But if that's not
> the case, then yeah, we need protection.
>
>
>> CPU0 (loads module A) CPU1 (loads module B)
>> =============================== ===============================
>> load_module(A) load_module(B)
>> blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust blocking_notifier_call_chain_robust
>> notifier_call_chain notifier_call_chain
>> nb = trace_events.c: nb = trace.c:
>> trace_module_notify [pri=1] trace_module_notify [pri=0]
>> mutex_lock(&event_mutex) trace_event_update_all()
>> trace_module_add_events(A) down_write(&trace_event_sem)
>> __register_event(call_A)
>> __add_event_to_tracers(call_A)
>> event_define_fields(call_A)
>> for each f:
>> f = kmem_cache_alloc()
>> list_add(&f->link,
>> &class->fields)
>> f->link.next=next; (2)
>> WRITE_ONCE(head->next,
>> &f->link); (4) update_event_fields(call_A)
>> mutex_unlock(&event_mutex) list_for_each_entry(field,
>> &class->fields, link)
>> field = class->fields->next
>> = &f->link
>> = f (offset 0)
>> up_write(&trace_event_sem)
>
> Basically this can be summed up to being:
>
> CPU0 (loads module A) CPU1 (loads module B)
> =============================== ===============================
> load_module(A) load_module(B)
> notifier_call_chain notifier_call_chain
> trace_module_notify trace_module_notify
> mutex_lock(&event_mutex) trace_event_update_all()
> trace_module_add_events(A) down_write(&trace_event_sem)
> __register_event(call_A)
> __add_event_to_tracers(call_A)
> event_define_fields(call_A)
> for each f: list_for_each_entry(field,
> list_add(&f->link, &class->fields, link)
> &class->fields) field = class->fields->next;
>
> Where you can see that one is being read while the other is being written
> to. You do not need to go into details of the cache visibility here because
> this is an obvious race condition. All that information just distracts from
> the real issue that is being fixed.
>
> Less is more when it comes to describing a bug.
>
> I'll rewrite you change log and take the patch.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve
--
Regards,
Michael Wu
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-12 2:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-10 6:32 [PATCH v5] tracing: Fix race between update_event_fields and, event_define_fields Michael Wu
2026-08-10 14:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-08-11 6:00 ` Michael Wu
2026-08-11 13:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-08-12 2:14 ` Michael Wu [this message]
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=f7b0e5a6-c38d-634e-4353-6d1bb5dcd12e@allwinnertech.com \
--to=michael@allwinnertech.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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