> One thing you could do is to make something like an rcu_assign_data()
> that does the assignment and checks rcu_read_ongoing(). Alternatively,
> if you are willing to put infrequent random delays in rcu_read_unlock(),
> an address sanitizer might detect the resulting use-after-free.

Sorry for being late to answer :/

I have thought of that but it's so easy to just not use rcu_assign_data() or a equivalent read function to check if the read is done within a read section. Maybe it's the best possible option

Thanks

Thobias

tor. 4. sep. 2025 kl. 20:06 skrev Thobias Knudsen <thobknu@gmail.com>:

> I am confuse about the overall discussion here. Are we talking about
> static checking of RCU pointers usage or runtime checking?
>
> Is is possible to see the implementation you made so I can understand
> better?

Sorry for being late to answer :/
The library overrides a subset of urcu and lfht functions with macros and replaces them with other functions which checks in runtime if the functions are called in the correct order.
here is the code: https://github.com/ThobiasKnudsen/urcu_lfht_safe

ons. 3. sep. 2025 kl. 03:35 skrev Olivier Dion <odion@efficios.com>:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025, Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org> wrote:
> Yes but all read/write operations doesn't have the syntax of a function as
> you used in the example here i.e. use(...). When it is a function you can
> easily just change the implementation to check if it is called inside a
> read section. Some reads and writes are usually done by this syntax (a = b)
> and '=' cannot be overridden.
>
> BTW just saying that what we're talking about now is not the original
> topic, but if someone has an elegant solution to this that would be
> nice!

I am confuse about the overall discussion here. Are we talking about
static checking of RCU pointers usage or runtime checking?

Is is possible to see the implementation you made so I can understand
better?

Thanks,
Olivier
--
Olivier Dion
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com