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;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 May 2023 22:26:37 +0200
To:     Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yonghong Song <yhs@meta.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kafai@fb.com, kpsingh@chromium.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        paulmck@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        Ze Gao <zegao@tencent.com>
Subject: Re:
Message-ID: <ZGp+fW855gmWuh9W@krava>
References: <20220515203653.4039075-1-jolsa@kernel.org>
 <20230520094722.5393-1-zegao@tencent.com>
 <b4f66729-90ab-080a-51ec-bf435ad6199d@meta.com>
 <CAD8CoPAXse1GKAb15O5tZJwBqMt1N_btH+qRe7c_a-ryUMjx7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD8CoPAXse1GKAb15O5tZJwBqMt1N_btH+qRe7c_a-ryUMjx7A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:10:16PM +0800, Ze Gao wrote:
> > kprobe_multi/fprobe share the same set of attachments with fentry.
> > Currently, fentry does not filter with !rcu_is_watching, maybe
> > because this is an extreme corner case. Not sure whether it is
> > worthwhile or not.
> 
> Agreed, it's rare, especially after Peter's patches which push narrow
> down rcu eqs regions
> in the idle path and reduce the chance of any traceable functions
> happening in between.
> 
> However, from RCU's perspective, we ought to check if rcu_is_watching
> theoretically
> when there's a chance our code will run in the idle path and also we
> need rcu to be alive,
> And also we cannot simply make assumptions for any future changes in
> the idle path.
> You know, just like what was hit in the thread.
> 
> > Maybe if you can give a concrete example (e.g., attachment point)
> > with current code base to show what the issue you encountered and
> > it will make it easier to judge whether adding !rcu_is_watching()
> > is necessary or not.
> 
> I can reproduce likely warnings on v6.1.18 where arch_cpu_idle is
> traceable but not on the latest version
> so far. But as I state above, in theory we need it. So here is a
> gentle ping :) .

hum, this change [1] added rcu_is_watching check to ftrace_test_recursion_trylock,
which we use in fprobe_handler and is coming to fprobe_exit_handler in [2]

I might be missing something, but it seems like we don't need another
rcu_is_watching call on kprobe_multi level

jirka


[1] d099dbfd3306 cpuidle: tracing: Warn about !rcu_is_watching()
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230517034510.15639-4-zegao@tencent.com/