Linux Trace Kernel
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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