On 2026/6/8 10:56, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 09:52:37 +0800
Tengda Wu [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2026/6/5 21:43, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 11:34:45 +0200
Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 08:40:01AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

quoted

Peter, is it OK to drop @rq from task_on_cpu()? 

Sure.

quoted

Then we can use it from rethook.

Well, it is in sched/sched.h, which is an internal header, and no you
cannot use that header in rethook.

Ah, OK. Hmm, then we should not use it. Maybe ->on_cpu is also internal
state?

quoted

But lets step back first, what is the actual problem here, why are we
looking at ->on_cpu at all?

Tengda, can you explain it?
I think you want to take a stacktrace on !current process, and
rethook_find_ret_addr() is rejected i the task is running state.

But if you can share actual situation what you need, it is
helpful for us to understand.

Thank you,

Sure.

Background: We are verifying the support of live patches for functions that
have a kretprobe. The specific verification method is as follows:

We construct a function foo() that calls bar():

void bar(void)
{
    for (;;) {
        schedule();
    }
}

void foo(void)
{
    bar();
}

A kretprobe is attached to bar():

echo 'r:rp1 bar' > /sys/kernel/tracing/kprobe_events
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/tracing/events/kprobes/rp1/enable

Then foo() is triggered. The expected behavior is that bar() will call
schedule() and yield the CPU.

After that, the live patch is activated to attempt replacing the implementation
of foo(). The expectation is that this should succeed.

However, in reality, because the task that called schedule() is still in the
RUNNING state, the condition task_is_running(tsk) inside rethook_find_ret_addr()
is not satisfied, causing the function to return early. This, in turn,
prevents stack_trace_save_tsk_reliable() from determining the stack as
reliable, leading to a failure in activating the live patch.

Hmm is the bar() doing infinite loop, or limited loop but take a long time
so just yield a while? Anyway, it seems like a non-good design pattern.
Is it possible to avoid busy loops and instead use Workers, or wait for
something to complete or for input within a loop?

quoted

**Not sure if this is correct:**

We believe that after a task voluntarily calls schedule(), when the stack
is expected to be reliable, it is a safe time to activate a live patch.

In this case, I don't know how to block the loop inside the bar.
Even if !tsk->on_cpu, the tsk can restart running right after checking
the flag.

The infinite loop in bar() is indeed a poor design pattern. This test
case is only artificial, not from real-world code. It is merely
intended to verify live patch support for various cases.

However, the point you raised has indeed made me think. I realize that
checking only tsk->on_cpu is not sufficient -- there is also a race
condition where the task could be scheduled back onto a CPU right after
the check. I need to re-examine the validity of this test case and
whether it represents a safe live patch activation scenario.

Thank you again for your patience and for pointing out these
fundamental issues. Your guidance is much appreciated.

Best regards,
Tengda