Mirror of the lttng-dev mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>
To: paulmck@kernel.org
Cc: Olivier Dion <odion@efficios.com>, lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
Subject: Re: URCU feature request?
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 23:06:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKGpciq+ixOVGN7TXYaF336ZEL_mOejzic5BvaKbexwwn_aqOQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f0dc1b4-3fcb-453c-aa42-4a1f85623300@paulmck-laptop>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4845 bytes --]

> We usually rely on the debugging code in rcu_dereference() to check this
> sort of thing.  Or are you worried about the user leaking RCU-protected
> pointers out past the rcu_read_unlock()?

Yes, that is what I'm worried about. For my case when using URCU that is my
biggest concern, as the debug macro "library" I made checks everything
else, if I haven't overlooked anything.

Thanks
Thobias

tir. 2. sep. 2025 kl. 22:33 skrev Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>:

> On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 04:24:16PM +0200, Thobias Knudsen wrote:
> > Figured out what rcu_read_ongoing does. It just returns true if it's
> called
> > within a read section and false otherwise. The problem for catching
> whether
> > reads are done outside read sections is that you can not make macros for
> > read and write operations. e.g. ptr->a = 4;.
>
> We usually rely on the debugging code in rcu_dereference() to check this
> sort of thing.  Or are you worried about the user leaking RCU-protected
> pointers out past the rcu_read_unlock()?
>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
> > tir. 2. sep. 2025 kl. 16:17 skrev Thobias Knudsen <thobknu@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > > I suspect that what you are trying to achieve is validation that
> > > > calls to functions that require to be within a RCU read-side critical
> > > > section such as cds_lfht_lookup are indeed invoked from within a
> > > > critical section.
> > >
> > > Yes exactly, but not only for read sections. It could also be to
> validate
> > > that rcu_barrier isnt called within a callback function or that
> > > rcu_quiescent_state isnt called when thread is offline
> > >
> > > > We've added a "rcu_read_ongoing()" API for that purpose to liburcu
> > > > RCU flavors, but AFAIK it's not used for any kind of validation
> > > > within cds_lfht. This could indeed become a feature request that
> > > > would apply to all liburcu data structure APIs.
> > >
> > > I can't find any documentation on rcu_read_ongoing. Btw the
> documentation
> > > for urcu in general is scattered all around the repo it seems. It
> should
> > > have been all at one place imo. Should I make a feature request for
> it? I
> > > don't know how stuff works inside this repo though.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > man. 1. sep. 2025 kl. 17:09 skrev Mathieu Desnoyers <
> > > mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>:
> > >
> > >> On 2025-08-31 16:48, Thobias Knudsen wrote:
> > >> > BTW i've made a macro library which overrides the
> > >> > urcu and lfht functions. It checks that you call the functions in
> the
> > >> > correct order. This has been really useful for debugging and I
> think it
> > >> > would be useful to have it integrated into urcu to make the it more
> > >> user
> > >> > friendly. you could have it integrated with the macro DEBUG_RCU or
> make
> > >> > a new one, maybe DEBUG_FUNCTION_CALL_ORDER. The only thing it
> doesn't
> > >> > catch is if you continue to use data from cds_lfht_lookup() after
> > >> > rcu_read_unlock()
> > >>
> > >> I suspect that what you are trying to achieve is validation that
> > >> calls to functions that require to be within a RCU read-side critical
> > >> section such as cds_lfht_lookup are indeed invoked from within a
> > >> critical section.
> > >>
> > >> We've added a "rcu_read_ongoing()" API for that purpose to liburcu
> > >> RCU flavors, but AFAIK it's not used for any kind of validation
> > >> within cds_lfht. This could indeed become a feature request that
> > >> would apply to all liburcu data structure APIs.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Mathieu
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > søn. 31. aug. 2025 kl. 22:42 skrev Thobias Knudsen <
> thobknu@gmail.com
> > >> > <mailto:thobknu@gmail.com>>:
> > >> >
> > >> >     First question: why isn't Userspace RCU more popular?
> > >> >     Second question: Why isn't it possible to create issues in the
> urcu
> > >> >     repo? Im asking for a feature here:
> > >> >     Is it possible to make a function which checks if there are more
> > >> >     callbacks queued by call_rcu? I need that because there are some
> > >> >     callbacks which call call_rcu, and then calling rcu_barrier once
> > >> >     isn't enough and I therefore need a way to check if there are
> still
> > >> >     callbacks to wait on before terminating the program. No worries
> if
> > >> >     this is too much to ask for or if it isn't possible. This
> > >> >     functionality is only needed in termination because otherwise
> > >> >     isn't needed to call rcu_barrier multiple times (at least so
> far)
> > >> >
> > >> >     Best regards
> > >> >     Thobias
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Mathieu Desnoyers
> > >> EfficiOS Inc.
> > >> https://www.efficios.com
> > >>
> > >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6581 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-02 21:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAKGpciq6Cb6+hqsfn+_zPk+MqCg+b0M_Gc3jVxVvnEGcE8rdLw@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <db17b2cb-6ec1-49a2-b6a8-444878b63319@efficios.com>
2025-09-02 14:02   ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
     [not found] ` <CAKGpciqHpGqGJChLa8p4P4Xv7EyUPMxULHxeknOTyie8kHH6hg@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]   ` <3c49eadb-f310-46b2-984d-58a0c193cde9@efficios.com>
2025-09-02 14:17     ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-02 14:24       ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-02 20:33         ` Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev
2025-09-02 21:06           ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev [this message]
2025-09-02 21:33             ` Ondřej Surý via lttng-dev
2025-09-02 21:48               ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-03  1:35                 ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2025-09-04 18:06                   ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-04 18:09                     ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-05 18:04                     ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2025-09-07 19:18                       ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-08  0:10                         ` Olivier Dion via lttng-dev
2025-09-19 20:39                           ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-19 20:42                             ` Thobias Knudsen via lttng-dev
2025-09-03  1:20             ` Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKGpciq+ixOVGN7TXYaF336ZEL_mOejzic5BvaKbexwwn_aqOQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org \
    --cc=odion@efficios.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=thobknu@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox