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 1/6] rcu: Make call_rcu() safe to call from any context
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 12:36:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260805123650.E48571F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260805122346.269445-2-puranjay@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] A lockless check in rcu_defer_flush() causes rcu_barrier() to miss in-flight deferred callbacks, violating the core rcu_barrier() guarantee.
- [High] __rcu_defer_drain() creates an unbounded non-interruptible critical section, breaking PREEMPT_RT constraints and risking hard lockups.
- [Medium] KASAN stack trace recording for deferred callbacks records the asynchronous irq_work context instead of the actual call_rcu() caller.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v3 1/6] rcu: Make call_rcu() safe to call from any context ---
commit 2b52f34260090add38843ff0920806c5e56bf18c
Author: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@kernel.org>
Subject: rcu: Make call_rcu() safe to call from any context
This commit makes call_rcu() safe to call from any context by deferring
callbacks to a per-CPU llist when interrupts are disabled. An irq_work
then re-issues these callbacks once interrupts are re-enabled, preventing
deadlocks or list corruption.
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 96848fc1f02b8..6fd7331aebc58 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -3206,6 +3211,104 @@ __call_rcu_common(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, bool lazy_in)
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Re-issue deferred callbacks straight to the enqueue so they cannot defer
> + * again. ->defer_lock serializes the drainers: this CPU's irq_work,
> + * rcu_defer_flush() and rcutree_migrate_callbacks().
> + */
> +static void __rcu_defer_drain(struct rcu_data *rdp, bool guard)
> +{
> + struct llist_node *node, *next;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_DEFER))
> + return;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rdp->defer_lock, flags);
> + if (guard)
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->defer_draining, true);
> + llist_for_each_safe(node, next, llist_del_all(&rdp->defer_head)) {
> + struct rcu_head *head = (struct rcu_head *)node;
> +
> + head->next = NULL;
> + rcu_do_enqueue(head, head->func, false);
> + }
[Severity: High]
Could holding this raw spinlock across an unbounded number of enqueues cause
latency spikes or hard lockups, especially on PREEMPT_RT?
If a bulk teardown path calls call_rcu() in a loop with interrupts disabled,
thousands of callbacks could be staged. When __rcu_defer_drain() runs, it
loops over all of them in a single uninterrupted pass. If another CPU
executes rcu_barrier() and calls __rcu_defer_drain(), it would also spin on
this raw lock with interrupts disabled for the entire duration of the drain.
> + if (guard)
> + WRITE_ONCE(rdp->defer_draining, false);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rdp->defer_lock, flags);
> +}
[ ... ]
> +/* Stage @head for this CPU's irq_work when call_rcu() cannot enqueue now. */
> +static void call_rcu_defer(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> +{
> + struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
[ ... ]
> + head->func = func;
> + if (llist_add((struct llist_node *)head, &rdp->defer_head))
> + irq_work_queue(&rdp->defer_work);
> +}
[Severity: Medium]
Will this delay KASAN stack trace recording to the irq_work context?
Because call_rcu_defer() stages the callback without recording the stack trace,
the trace gets recorded later by kasan_record_aux_stack(head) inside
rcu_do_enqueue(). This means any use-after-free reports might point to
the irq_work instead of the original call_rcu() caller, making debugging
more difficult.
> +/*
> + * Register pending deferred callbacks into the callback lists so a following
> + * rcu_barrier() waits for them. This runs before rcu_barrier() scans the
> + * lists.
> + */
> +static void rcu_defer_flush(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_DEFER))
> + return;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> +
> + if (!llist_empty(&rdp->defer_head))
> + __rcu_defer_drain(rdp, false);
> + }
> +}
[Severity: Critical]
Can this lockless check cause rcu_barrier() to miss in-flight callbacks?
If CPU A's irq_work detaches the list via llist_del_all() in
__rcu_defer_drain(), defer_head becomes empty immediately. If CPU B
executes rcu_defer_flush() concurrently, the lockless llist_empty()
check will return true and bypass acquiring defer_lock.
Since CPU A has detached the callbacks but hasn't yet enqueued them
into cblist, CPU B might skip __rcu_defer_drain(), check a cblist that
does not yet contain the detached callbacks, and allow rcu_barrier()
to return prematurely while objects are still in use.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260805122346.269445-1-puranjay@kernel.org?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-05 12:36 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 [this message]
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
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=20260805123650.E48571F000E9@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