Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230509163050.127d5123@rorschach.local.home> <20230515165707.hv65ekwp2djkjj5i@MacBook-Pro-8.local>
 <20230515192407.GA85@W11-BEAU-MD.localdomain> <20230517003628.aqqlvmzffj7fzzoj@MacBook-Pro-8.local>
 <CAHk-=whBKoovtifU2eCeyuBBee-QMcbxdXDLv0mu0k2DgxiaOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj1hh=ZUriY9pVFvD1MjqbRuzHc4yz=S2PCW7u3W0-_BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230516222919.79bba667@rorschach.local.home> <CAHk-=wh_GEr4ehJKwMM3UA0-7CfNpVH7v_T-=1u+gq9VZD70mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230517172243.GA152@W11-BEAU-MD.localdomain> <CAHk-=whzzuNEW8UcV2_8OyuKcXPrk7-j_8GzOoroxz9JiZiD3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230517190750.GA366@W11-BEAU-MD.localdomain> <CAHk-=whTBvXJuoi_kACo3qi5WZUmRrhyA-_=rRFsycTytmB6qw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whTBvXJuoi_kACo3qi5WZUmRrhyA-_=rRFsycTytmB6qw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 12:36:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi4w9bPKFFGwLULjJf9hnkL941+c4HbeEVKNzqH04wqDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/user_events: Run BPF program if attached
To:     Beau Belgrave <beaub@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Vernet <void@manifault.com>, dthaler@microsoft.com,
        brauner@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:26=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Also note that this does NOT fix the incorrect RCU walks.

.. this is the patch that I think should go on top of it to fix the
misleading "safe" and the incorrect RCU walk.

NOTE! This adds that

        lockdep_assert_held(&event_mutex);

to user_event_enabler_update() too. It's already there in
user_event_enabler_write(), but I'm not actually convinced this has
gotten enough coverage checking, so I also did it in that caller.

Some callers obviously hold that mutex. Others are much less obvious,
eg that user_event_reg() -> update_enable_bit_for() chain. I *assume*
all the 'class->reg()' callers get the event mutex, but I did not in
any way check that it is true.

So that lockdep annotation should be actually *tested* with lockdep
enabled and somebody doing all these operations.

Final note: I do not know this code *AT*ALL*. I'm literally just going
by "this is the only correct coding pattern to use", not by some
deeper understanding of what the code actually wants to do.

                   Linus