From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D38EB3EFD3F for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773941278; cv=none; b=CbiFXXCtdCehp4GywVAM0WfIMDYSjRJ0ZtO2abbPEeTs2cux5ZDkdSD9Ti+TruZCWab+xqE70EVPt9CfQq2cFkP5ZuGBBf4K+kBLf3fjlSf+wydfJ3WANcJzQu4Uj93NVGfglYHsDKymdWIp3CPxJy7+4P8egPLu/eBiLCvuBJo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773941278; c=relaxed/simple; bh=p7RCR7vOn6YNBq6N5xnO6UDE2e8KWYL3tUjB20fWW68=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tLXAnfxdGDc96scrDWrmMI07yBwGa6a7zafzs56tevSvPQd7qUH+xeCqFslNUtWhz7+pMCmuGW2Lv16Ic4ap0l25uUTbyVOAXV/du5lNTb+CRn3FsE47xlxGl/3YZ40Y+Du73KxhMjFITiE5Y9moffbuGL5o0EDRnRtcmQaspns= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pJxs9f73; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="pJxs9f73" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40945C2BCAF; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:27:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773941278; bh=p7RCR7vOn6YNBq6N5xnO6UDE2e8KWYL3tUjB20fWW68=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pJxs9f73FrKJUTsn8ryZNUhlnqsn65B3P0bbJ2IITaQr9B0iFz1x7ZI6BlO2jH5+P 9TwNk7LJo4diessO48m+68570m79oshzOUrCqIQeelTbt5VW/6pTtREWvgYSye+g73 F3woDf1txRiSwsTTyy6uZ4UCG2ixbfXpODHa7yNSbllTP5HzgPbZCAWvDrjZf6khw2 7mXfRd6ASX5zNl25NkM8vYnkqZlvDGYz5UqV/2MUlmrNKTQPXBUVx1ye2iMJuNz3Sk NLf8lM4czumpoegXh69fN54P9873G8M+6a4uJNvN6daS4nAQ+3PRGh//fBX+dpfJ8C 1ntgUzfNqWi9g== Received: from phl-compute-12.internal (phl-compute-12.internal [10.202.2.52]) by mailfauth.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFB2F4006C; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-12.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:27:55 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgdeftdejieduucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepuehoqhhunhcu hfgvnhhguceosghoqhhunheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe ekgffhhfeuheelhfekteeuffejveetjeefffettedtteegfefftdduteduudfgleenucev lhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsohhquhhnod hmvghsmhhtphgruhhthhhpvghrshhonhgrlhhithihqdduieejtdelkeegjeduqddujeej keehheehvddqsghoqhhunheppehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghesfhhigihmvgdrnhgrmhgvpd hnsggprhgtphhtthhopeduhedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgv mhigohhrsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsghighgvrghshieslhhinhhuth hrohhnihigrdguvgdprhgtphhtthhopehjohgvlhgrghhnvghlfhesnhhvihguihgrrdgt ohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepphgruhhlmhgtkheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoh epfhhrvgguvghrihgtsehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehnvggvrhgrjhdr ihhithhruddtsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepuhhrvgiikhhisehgmhgrih hlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsghoqhhunhdrfhgvnhhgsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhr tghpthhtoheprhgtuhesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i8dbe485b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:27:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2026 10:27:54 -0700 From: Boqun Feng To: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Joel Fernandes , paulmck@kernel.org, frederic@kernel.org, neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com, urezki@gmail.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , John Fastabend Subject: Re: Next-level bug in SRCU implementation of RCU Tasks Trace + PREEMPT_RT Message-ID: References: <20260319090315.Ec_eXAg4@linutronix.de> <20260319163350.c7WuYOM9@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 at 17:48, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 05:33:50PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > On 2026-03-19 09:27:59 [-0700], Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:03:15AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > Please just use the queue_delayed_work() with a delay >0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't work since queue_delayed_work() with a positive delay will > > > > still acquire timer base lock, and we can have BPF instrument with timer > > > > base lock held i.e. calling call_srcu() with timer base lock. > > > > > > > > irq_work on the other hand doesn't use any locking. > > > > > > Could we please restrict BPF somehow so it does roam free? It is > > > absolutely awful to have irq_work() in call_srcu() just because it > > > might acquire locks. > > > > > > > I agree it's not RCU's fault ;-) > > > > I guess it'll be difficult to restrict BPF, however maybe BPF can call > > call_srcu() in irq_work instead? Or a more systematic defer mechanism > > that allows BPF to defer any lock holding functions to a different > > context. (We have a similar issue that BPF cannot call kfree_rcu() in > > some cases IIRC). > > > > But we need to fix this in v7.0, so this short-term fix is still needed. > > > > I don't think this is an option, even longer term. We already do it > when it's incorrect to invoke call_rcu() or any other API in a > specific context (e.g., NMI, where we punt it using irq_work). > However, the case reported in this thread is different. It was an > existing user which worked fine before but got broken now. We were > using call_rcu_tasks_trace() just fine in scx callbacks where rq->lock > is held before, so the conversion underneath to call_srcu() should > continue to remain transparent in this respect. > I'm not sure that's a real argument here, kernel doesn't have a stable internal API, which allows developers to refactor the code into a saner way. There are currently multiple issues that suggest we may need a defer mechanism for BPF core, and if it makes the code more easier to reason about then why not? Think about it like a process that we learn about all the defer patterns that BPF currently needs and wrap them in a nice and maintainable way. Regards, Boqun > > Regars, > > Boqun > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Boqun > > > > > > > Sebastian