[PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Zqiang]

The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
-ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.

This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
grace period" warning.

Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
---
 kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
 static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
 {
 	rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
-	schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
+	WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
+		  "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n", rtp->name);
 }
 
 static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Bradley Morgan]

On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
>schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
>a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
>rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
>schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
>-ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
>switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
>
>This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
>WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
>grace period" warning.

NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the system
with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would reserve that
for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to notify
the user.


I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a heavy edge
case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.

Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so, could you
tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)


>
>Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>---
> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
>--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>@@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> {
> 	rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>-	schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>+	WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
>+		  "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n", rtp->name);

Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see above.

> }
> 
> static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> func);
>

--- Thanks!
"I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Zqiang]

> 
> On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
> > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
> > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
> > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
> > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
> > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
> > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
> > 
> > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
> > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
> > grace period" warning.
> > 
> NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the system
> with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would reserve that
> for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to notify
> the user.
> 
> I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a heavy edge
> case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.

Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the WARN_ONCE()
not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help us troubleshoot
UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.

or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to replace
alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.

Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the opinions of others.

Thanks
Zqiang


> 
> Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so, could you
> tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> >  {
> >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
> > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n", rtp->name);
> > 
> Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see above.
> 
> > 
> > }
> >  
> >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> >  func);
> > 
> --- Thanks!
> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Bradley Morgan]

On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
>> > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
>> > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
>> > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
>> > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
>> > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
>> > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
>> > 
>> > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
>> > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
>> > grace period" warning.
>> > 
>> NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the system
>> with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would reserve
>that
>> for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to notify
>> the user.
>> 
>> I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a heavy
>edge
>> case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
>
>Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
>WARN_ONCE()
>not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help us
>troubleshoot
>UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
>
>or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to
>replace
>alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
>
>Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the opinions
>of others.

Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:

Here is the TL;DR

My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
happens,
it falls back.


root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# git diff kernel/rcu
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
 // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.

 // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
-static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
+static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 }

 // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
+static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
+{
+}
+
 static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
 {
+       int cpu;
        rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
-       schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
+       cpus_read_lock();
+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+               smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
+       cpus_read_unlock();
 }

 static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#

On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.


If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my authorship, or
my c-d-b. 

Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d

BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?

>
>Thanks
>Zqiang
>
>
>> 
>> Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so, could
>you
>> tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
>> 
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>> > ---
>> >  kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct
>*work)
>> >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> >  {
>> >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
>> > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n",
>rtp->name);
>> > 
>> Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see above.
>> 
>> > 
>> > }
>> >  
>> >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
>> >  func);
>> > 
>> --- Thanks!
>> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>>

--- Thanks!
"I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Zqiang]

> 
> On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> > >  
> > >  > 
> > >  > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
> > >  > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
> > >  > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
> > >  > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
> > >  > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
> > >  > 
> > >  > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
> > >  > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
> > >  > grace period" warning.
> > >  > 
> > >  NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the system
> > >  with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would reserve
> > > 
> > that
> > 
> > > 
> > > for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to notify
> > >  the user.
> > >  
> > >  I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a heavy
> > > 
> > edge
> > 
> > > 
> > > case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
> > > 
> > Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
> > WARN_ONCE()
> > not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help us
> > troubleshoot
> > UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
> > 
> > or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to
> > replace
> > alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
> > 
> > Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the opinions
> > of others.
> > 
> Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:
> 
> Here is the TL;DR
> 
> My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
> happens,
> it falls back.
> 
> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#  git diff kernel/rcu
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
>  // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.
> 
>  // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
> -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>  }
> 
>  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
> +{
> +}
> +
>  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>  {
> + int cpu;
>  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> + cpus_read_lock();
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
> + cpus_read_unlock();
>  }

RCU Tasks Rude use preempt_disable/enable as the read critical section,
you use smp_call_function_single() to send ipi to each online CPUs, 
it's not forces a context sched switch, and not wait the preempt_disable/enable
read critical section to exit, this is the wrong mechanism. ;-(

Obviously, we only need to not apply alloc_percpu dynamic allocation:

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
index fcac7361ec51..49b629b0010b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
@@ -1357,11 +1357,25 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 }

+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, tasks_rude_work);
+
 // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
 static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
 {
+       int cpu;
+
+       guard(cpus_read_lock)();
        rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
-       schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
+
+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+               struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu);
+
+               INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
+               schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
+       }
+
+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+               flush_work(&per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu));
 }

 static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);


Thanks
Zqiang



> 
>  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
> 
> On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.
> 
> If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my authorship, or
> my c-d-b. 
> 
> Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d
> 
> BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Zqiang
> > 
> > > 
> > > Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so, could
> > > 
> > you
> > 
> > > 
> > > tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
> > >  
> > >  > 
> > >  > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> > >  > ---
> > >  > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
> > >  > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >  > 
> > >  > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >  > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
> > >  > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >  > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >  > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct
> > > 
> > *work)
> > 
> > > 
> > > > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > >  > {
> > >  > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> > >  > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > >  > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
> > >  > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n",
> > > 
> > rtp->name);
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > >  Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see above.
> > >  
> > >  > 
> > >  > }
> > >  > 
> > >  > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> > >  > func);
> > >  > 
> > >  --- Thanks!
> > >  "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
> > >
> > 
> --- Thanks!
> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Bradley Morgan]

On 17 October 2026 13:14:29 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>wrote:
>> > >  
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
>> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
>> > >  > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
>> > >  > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
>> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
>> > >  > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
>> > >  > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
>> > >  > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
>> > >  > grace period" warning.
>> > >  > 
>> > >  NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the
>system
>> > >  with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would
>reserve
>> > > 
>> > that
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to
>notify
>> > >  the user.
>> > >  
>> > >  I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a
>heavy
>> > > 
>> > edge
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
>> > > 
>> > Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
>> > WARN_ONCE()
>> > not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help
>us
>> > troubleshoot
>> > UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
>> > 
>> > or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to
>> > replace
>> > alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
>> > 
>> > Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the
>opinions
>> > of others.
>> > 
>> Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:
>> 
>> Here is the TL;DR
>> 
>> My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
>> happens,
>> it falls back.
>> 
>> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#  git
>diff kernel/rcu
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
>>  // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.
>> 
>>  // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
>> -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>> +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>>  {
>>  }
>> 
>>  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>> +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>>  {
>> + int cpu;
>>  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> + cpus_read_lock();
>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
>> + cpus_read_unlock();
>>  }
>
>RCU Tasks Rude use preempt_disable/enable as the read critical section,
>you use smp_call_function_single() to send ipi to each online CPUs, 
>it's not forces a context sched switch, and not wait the
>preempt_disable/enable
>read critical section to exit, this is the wrong mechanism. ;-(
>
>Obviously, we only need to not apply alloc_percpu dynamic allocation:
>
>diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>index fcac7361ec51..49b629b0010b 100644
>--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>@@ -1357,11 +1357,25 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> }
>
>+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, tasks_rude_work);
>+
> // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> {
>+       int cpu;
>+
>+       guard(cpus_read_lock)();
>        rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>-       schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>+
>+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>+               struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu);
>+
>+               INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>+               schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
>+       }
>+
>+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>+               flush_work(&per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu));
> }
>
> static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> func);
>

Wow!

Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>

>
>Thanks
>Zqiang
>
>
>
>> 
>>  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
>func);
>> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
>> 
>> On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.
>> 
>> If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my authorship,
>or
>> my c-d-b. 
>> 
>> Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d
>> 
>> BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?
>> 
>> > 
>> > Thanks
>> > Zqiang
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so,
>could
>> > > 
>> > you
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
>> > >  
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>> > >  > ---
>> > >  > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
>> > >  > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > >  > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
>> > >  > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > >  > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > >  > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct
>work_struct
>> > > 
>> > *work)
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> > >  > {
>> > >  > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> > >  > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> > >  > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
>> > >  > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected
>behavior!!!\n",
>> > > 
>> > rtp->name);
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > > 
>> > >  Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see
>above.
>> > >  
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > }
>> > >  > 
>> > >  > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp,
>rcu_callback_t
>> > >  > func);
>> > >  > 
>> > >  --- Thanks!
>> > >  "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>> > >
>> > 
>> --- Thanks!
>> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>>

--- Thanks!
"I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Bradley Morgan]

On 17 October 2026 13:20:50 BST, Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
wrote:
>On 17 October 2026 13:14:29 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>>wrote:
>>> > >  
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
>>> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
>>> > >  > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
>>> > >  > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
>>> > >  > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
>>> > >  > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
>>> > >  > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
>>> > >  > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
>>> > >  > grace period" warning.
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the
>>system
>>> > >  with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would
>>reserve
>>> > > 
>>> > that
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to
>>notify
>>> > >  the user.
>>> > >  
>>> > >  I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a
>>heavy
>>> > > 
>>> > edge
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
>>> > > 
>>> > Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
>>> > WARN_ONCE()
>>> > not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help
>>us
>>> > troubleshoot
>>> > UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
>>> > 
>>> > or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to
>>> > replace
>>> > alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
>>> > 
>>> > Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the
>>opinions
>>> > of others.
>>> > 
>>> Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:
>>> 
>>> Here is the TL;DR
>>> 
>>> My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
>>> happens,
>>> it falls back.
>>> 
>>> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#  git
>>diff kernel/rcu
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
>>>  // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.
>>> 
>>>  // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
>>> -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>>>  {
>>>  }
>>> 
>>>  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>>> +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
>>> +{
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>>>  {
>>> + int cpu;
>>>  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>>> - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>>> + cpus_read_lock();
>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>>> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
>>> + cpus_read_unlock();
>>>  }
>>
>>RCU Tasks Rude use preempt_disable/enable as the read critical section,
>>you use smp_call_function_single() to send ipi to each online CPUs, 
>>it's not forces a context sched switch, and not wait the
>>preempt_disable/enable
>>read critical section to exit, this is the wrong mechanism. ;-(
>>
>>Obviously, we only need to not apply alloc_percpu dynamic allocation:
>>
>>diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>index fcac7361ec51..49b629b0010b 100644
>>--- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>+++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>@@ -1357,11 +1357,25 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct
>*work)
>> {
>> }
>>
>>+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, tasks_rude_work);
>>+
>> // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> {
>>+       int cpu;
>>+
>>+       guard(cpus_read_lock)();
>>        rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>>-       schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>>+
>>+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>>+               struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(tasks_rude_work,
>cpu);
>>+
>>+               INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>>+               schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
>>+       }
>>+
>>+       for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>>+               flush_work(&per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu));
>> }
>>
>> static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
>> func);
>>
>
>Wow!
>
>Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>


Gimme a sec I'll submit the patch.. 

>
>>
>>Thanks
>>Zqiang
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>>  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
>>func);
>>> root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
>>> 
>>> On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.
>>> 
>>> If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my authorship,
>>or
>>> my c-d-b. 
>>> 
>>> Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d
>>> 
>>> BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Zqiang
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so,
>>could
>>> > > 
>>> > you
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
>>> > >  
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>>> > >  > ---
>>> > >  > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
>>> > >  > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> > >  > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
>>> > >  > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> > >  > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>>> > >  > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct
>>work_struct
>>> > > 
>>> > *work)
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>>> > >  > {
>>> > >  > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>>> > >  > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>>> > >  > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
>>> > >  > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected
>>behavior!!!\n",
>>> > > 
>>> > rtp->name);
>>> > 
>>> > > 
>>> > > > 
>>> > >  Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see
>>above.
>>> > >  
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > }
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp,
>>rcu_callback_t
>>> > >  > func);
>>> > >  > 
>>> > >  --- Thanks!
>>> > >  "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>>> > >
>>> > 
>>> --- Thanks!
>>> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>>>
>
>--- Thanks!
>"I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds

--- Thanks!
"I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Zqiang]

> 
> On 17 October 2026 13:20:50 BST, Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 17 October 2026 13:14:29 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> >  
> >  On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> >  
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> > 
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
> >  > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
> >  > > > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
> >  > > > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
> >  > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
> >  > > > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
> >  > > > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
> >  > > > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
> >  > > > grace period" warning.
> >  > > > 
> >  > > NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the
> > 
> > > 
> > > system
> > > 
> >  > > with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would
> > 
> > > 
> > > reserve
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > that
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to
> > 
> > > 
> > > notify
> > > 
> >  > > the user.
> >  > > 
> >  > > I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a
> > 
> > > 
> > > heavy
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > edge
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
> >  > > 
> >  > Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
> >  > WARN_ONCE()
> >  > not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can help
> > 
> > > 
> > > us
> > > 
> >  > troubleshoot
> >  > UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
> >  > 
> >  > or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work) to
> >  > replace
> >  > alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
> >  > 
> >  > Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the
> > 
> > > 
> > > opinions
> > > 
> >  > of others.
> >  > 
> >  Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:
> >  
> >  Here is the TL;DR
> >  
> >  My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
> >  happens,
> >  it falls back.
> >  
> >  root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#  mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# git
> > 
> > > 
> > > diff kernel/rcu
> > > 
> >  diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
> >  --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
> >  // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.
> >  
> >  // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
> >  -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> >  +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> >  {
> >  }
> >  
> >  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> >  +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
> >  +{
> >  +}
> >  +
> >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> >  {
> >  + int cpu;
> >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> >  - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> >  + cpus_read_lock();
> >  + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >  + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
> >  + cpus_read_unlock();
> >  }
> > 
> > > 
> > > RCU Tasks Rude use preempt_disable/enable as the read critical section,
> > > you use smp_call_function_single() to send ipi to each online CPUs, 
> > > it's not forces a context sched switch, and not wait the
> > > preempt_disable/enable
> > > read critical section to exit, this is the wrong mechanism. ;-(
> > > 
> > > Obviously, we only need to not apply alloc_percpu dynamic allocation:
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > index fcac7361ec51..49b629b0010b 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > @@ -1357,11 +1357,25 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct
> > > 
> > *work)
> > 
> > > 
> > > {
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, tasks_rude_work);
> > > +
> > >  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> > >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > >  {
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + guard(cpus_read_lock)();
> > >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> > > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > > +
> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > + struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(tasks_rude_work,
> > > 
> > cpu);
> > 
> > > 
> > > +
> > > + INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > > + schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > + flush_work(&per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu));
> > >  }
> > > 
> > >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> > >  func);
> > > 
> > Wow!
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
> > 
> Gimme a sec I'll submit the patch.. 

Actually, I don't mind you send this fix directly, due to you use an incorrect IPI
mechanism to implement it, I would like to know wether you truly understand the tasks-rude
and how schedule_on_each_cpu() ensures memory order.


> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Zqiang
> > > 
> >  
> >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
> > 
> > > 
> > > func);
> > > 
> >  root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux#  mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
> >  
> >  On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.
> >  
> >  If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my authorship,
> > 
> > > 
> > > or
> > > 
> >  my c-d-b. 
> >  
> >  Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d
> >  
> >  BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?
> >  
> >  > 
> >  > Thanks
> >  > Zqiang
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so,
> > 
> > > 
> > > could
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > you
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
> >  > > 
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> >  > > > ---
> >  > > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
> >  > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  > > > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
> >  > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >  > > > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct
> > 
> > > 
> > > work_struct
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > *work)
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> >  > > > {
> >  > > > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> >  > > > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> >  > > > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
> >  > > > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected
> > 
> > > 
> > > behavior!!!\n",
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > rtp->name);
> >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > > 
> >  > > Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see
> > 
> > > 
> > > above.
> > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > }
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp,
> > 
> > > 
> > > rcu_callback_t
> > > 
> >  > > > func);
> >  > > > 
> >  > > --- Thanks!
> >  > > "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
> >  > >
> >  > 
> >  --- Thanks!
> >  "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
> > 
> > --- Thanks!
> > "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
> > 
> --- Thanks!
> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Bradley Morgan]

On 17 October 2026 14:37:24 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> 
>> On 17 October 2026 13:20:50 BST, Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > On 17 October 2026 13:14:29 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> >  
>> >  On 17 October 2026 00:41:00 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>wrote:
>> >  
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > On 15 October 2026 10:46:19 BST, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
>> >  > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which
>forces
>> >  > > > a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
>> >  > > > rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
>> >  > > > schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
>> >  > > > -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
>> >  > > > switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
>> >  > > > WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
>> >  > > > grace period" warning.
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > NAK, this seems like a edge case, and potentially panicking the
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > system
>> > > 
>> >  > > with panic on oops doesn't seem right to me, because we would
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > reserve
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > that
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > for when something definitely goes really wrong and we need to
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > notify
>> > > 
>> >  > > the user.
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > I don't believe this patch should go in for this reason, it's a
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > heavy
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > edge
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > case, that doesn't *have* nessesarily need to be accounted for.
>> >  > > 
>> >  > Indeed, this is a rare event, so I use WARN_ONCE() to mark it, the
>> >  > WARN_ONCE()
>> >  > not panicking system unless you set warn_on_oops true, this can
>help
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > us
>> > > 
>> >  > troubleshoot
>> >  > UAF issues caused by a too short tasks-rude grace period.
>> >  > 
>> >  > or maybe we can use DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work)
>to
>> >  > replace
>> >  > alloc_percpu(struct work_struct) queue to all online CPUs.
>> >  > 
>> >  > Anyway, Thank you for your reply. I would also like to hear the
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > opinions
>> > > 
>> >  > of others.
>> >  > 
>> >  Fair enough, but me and Paul done some discussions:
>> >  
>> >  Here is the TL;DR
>> >  
>> >  My ^W^Wai slop^W^W tool helped me with this: if the too short grace
>> >  happens,
>> >  it falls back.
>> >  
>> >  root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
>mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# git
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > diff kernel/rcu
>> > > 
>> >  diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  index 627295396cd9..65bb7d4ed632 100644
>> >  --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  @@ -1344,15 +1344,23 @@ void exit_tasks_rcu_finish(void) { }
>> >  // Ordering is provided by the scheduler's context-switch code.
>> >  
>> >  // Empty function to allow workqueues to force a context switch.
>> >  -static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>> >  +static void __maybe_unused rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct
>*work)
>> >  {
>> >  }
>> >  
>> >  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>> >  +static void rcu_tasks_rude_ipi(void *info)
>> >  +{
>> >  +}
>> >  +
>> >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> >  {
>> >  + int cpu;
>> >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> >  - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> >  + cpus_read_lock();
>> >  + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> >  + smp_call_function_single(cpu, rcu_tasks_rude_ipi, NULL, 1);
>> >  + cpus_read_unlock();
>> >  }
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > RCU Tasks Rude use preempt_disable/enable as the read critical
>section,
>> > > you use smp_call_function_single() to send ipi to each online CPUs, 
>> > > it's not forces a context sched switch, and not wait the
>> > > preempt_disable/enable
>> > > read critical section to exit, this is the wrong mechanism. ;-(
>> > > 
>> > > Obviously, we only need to not apply alloc_percpu dynamic
>allocation:
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > > index fcac7361ec51..49b629b0010b 100644
>> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> > > @@ -1357,11 +1357,25 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct
>work_struct
>> > > 
>> > *work)
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > {
>> > >  }
>> > > 
>> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, tasks_rude_work);
>> > > +
>> > >  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>> > >  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> > >  {
>> > > + int cpu;
>> > > +
>> > > + guard(cpus_read_lock)();
>> > >  rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> > > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> > > +
>> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> > > + struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(tasks_rude_work,
>> > > 
>> > cpu);
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > +
>> > > + INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> > > + schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
>> > > + }
>> > > +
>> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> > > + flush_work(&per_cpu(tasks_rude_work, cpu));
>> > >  }
>> > > 
>> > >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp,
>rcu_callback_t
>> > >  func);
>> > > 
>> > Wow!
>> > 
>> > Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <brads@mainlining.org>
>> > 
>> Gimme a sec I'll submit the patch.. 
>
>Actually, I don't mind you send this fix directly, due to you use an
>incorrect IPI
>mechanism to implement it, I would like to know wether you truly
>understand the tasks-rude
>and how schedule_on_each_cpu() ensures memory order.

Hi, I do understand how it all works.

The reasons why you would suspect I wouldn't

1: I used a ai slop tool to suggest *my* fix, and I tested it on rcutorture
2: I'm sometimes a bit dumb, it happens :(

You said you "don't mind", does that mean you DONT want your fix submitted
(but I already submitted it ;c), or that you are okay with your fix being
sent.


>
>
>> 
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks
>> > > Zqiang
>> > > 
>> >  
>> >  static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > func);
>> > > 
>> >  root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
>mailto:root@p10-linux-brads:~/linux# 
>> >  
>> >  On POWERPC, this passes 12 hours of rcutorture on the RUDE01 config.
>> >  
>> >  If you plan on submitting this into a patch, please add my
>authorship,
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > or
>> > > 
>> >  my c-d-b. 
>> >  
>> >  Feel free to rcutorture test it ;d
>> >  
>> >  BTW: have you reproduced this on your own system?
>> >  
>> >  > 
>> >  > Thanks
>> >  > Zqiang
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > Zqiang, have you reproduced this OOM on your own system, if so,
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > could
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > you
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > tell me more details, you may turn my frown into a smiley face ;)
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
>> >  > > > ---
>> >  > > > kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
>> >  > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  > > > index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
>> >  > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
>> >  > > > @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > work_struct
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > *work)
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > > static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>> >  > > > {
>> >  > > > rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> >  > > > - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>> >  > > > + WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
>> >  > > > + "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > behavior!!!\n",
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > rtp->name);
>> >  > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > Good message, makes sense. But I don't think this is right, see
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > above.
>> > > 
>> >  > > 
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > }
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > > static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp,
>> > 
>> > > 
>> > > rcu_callback_t
>> > > 
>> >  > > > func);
>> >  > > > 
>> >  > > --- Thanks!
>> >  > > "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>> >  > >
>> >  > 
>> >  --- Thanks!
>> >  "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>> > 
>> > --- Thanks!
>> > "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>> > 
>> --- Thanks!
>> "I'm not a very positive person" - Linus torvalds
>>

--- Thanks!
https://lore.kernel.org/all/EE579805-42F2-4C58-B752-F28779EEB717@grrlz.net/

Re: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Warn on too-short RCU Tasks Rude grace period

[Joel Fernandes]

> On Oct 15, 2026, at 5:46 AM, Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
> The RCU Tasks Rude grace period is implemented by invoking the
> schedule_on_each_cpu() with an empty work function, which forces
> a context switch on every online CPU and guarantees that all
> rude-tasks read-side critical sections have completed. However,
> schedule_on_each_cpu() can fail (via alloc_percpu() returning
> -ENOMEM) and returns immediately, in which case those context
> switches never happen, too-short grace period happen.
> 
> This commit therefore wraps the schedule_on_each_cpu() call in
> WARN_ONCE() so that this failure is reported as a "Too-short
> grace period" warning.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang@linux.dev>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> index fcac7361ec51..91c25717402e 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> @@ -1361,7 +1361,8 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> {
>    rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> -    schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> +    WARN_ONCE(schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude),
> +          "%s: Too-short grace period, OOM is now expected behavior!!!\n", rtp->name);

Is that the best error message? OOM is expected when grace periods do not conclude.

Thanks.

> }
> 
> static void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> --
> 2.17.1
>