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;
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2023 10:36:52 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ze Gao <zegao2021@gmail.com>, 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: <20230522103652.4c1680bb945cba22ccba6a79@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <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>
        <ZGp+fW855gmWuh9W@krava>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 21 May 2023 22:26:37 +0200
Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Good point! OK, then it seems we don't need it. The rethook continues to
use the rcu_is_watching() because it is also used from kprobes, but the
kprobe_multi doesn't need it.

Thank you,

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


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>