ftrace: Synchronize the initialization of ftrace_opsgrafted

There's some internal state that ftrace_ops needs to have set, but since
it can be declared outside of the ftrace.c code, it calls
ftrace_ops_init() on the ops in every global function. The issue is that
if two tasks call it on the same ops at the same time it is possible to
have the initialization of one corrupt the initialization of the other
call.

Create a ops_mutex to use to synchronize every initialization of the
ftrace_ops. The mutex is taken within checking the ftrace_ops flag that
states it was initializied but the flag is checked again after the mutex
has been taken. Checking first outside the mutex allows it to shortcut
having to take the mutex. But then the check needs to be done again after
the mute is taken in case of races.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260902095501.6b59af20@gandalf.local.home
Fixes: f04f24fb7e48d ("ftrace, kprobes: Fix a deadlock on ftrace_regex_lock")
Reported-by: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
Close: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260829025528.49A831F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>

1 files changed, 59 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst b/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..634aa222b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arch/riscv/patch-acceptance.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+arch/riscv maintenance guidelines for developers
+================================================
+
+Overview
+--------
+The RISC-V instruction set architecture is developed in the open:
+in-progress drafts are available for all to review and to experiment
+with implementations.  New module or extension drafts can change
+during the development process - sometimes in ways that are
+incompatible with previous drafts.  This flexibility can present a
+challenge for RISC-V Linux maintenance.  Linux maintainers disapprove
+of churn, and the Linux development process prefers well-reviewed and
+tested code over experimental code.  We wish to extend these same
+principles to the RISC-V-related code that will be accepted for
+inclusion in the kernel.
+
+Patchwork
+---------
+
+RISC-V has a patchwork instance, where the status of patches can be checked:
+
+  https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-riscv/list/
+
+If your patch does not appear in the default view, the RISC-V maintainers have
+likely either requested changes, or expect it to be applied to another tree.
+
+Automation runs against this patchwork instance, building/testing patches as
+they arrive. The automation applies patches against the current HEAD of the
+RISC-V `for-next` and `fixes` branches, depending on whether the patch has been
+detected as a fix. Failing those, it will use the RISC-V `master` branch.
+The exact commit to which a series has been applied will be noted on patchwork.
+Patches for which any of the checks fail are unlikely to be applied and in most
+cases will need to be resubmitted.
+
+Submit Checklist Addendum
+-------------------------
+We'll only accept patches for new modules or extensions if the
+specifications for those modules or extensions are listed as being
+unlikely to be incompatibly changed in the future.  For
+specifications from the RISC-V foundation this means "Frozen" or
+"Ratified", for the UEFI forum specifications this means a published
+ECR.  (Developers may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees
+that contain code for any draft extensions that they wish.)
+
+Additionally, the RISC-V specification allows implementers to create
+their own custom extensions.  These custom extensions aren't required
+to go through any review or ratification process by the RISC-V
+Foundation.  To avoid the maintenance complexity and potential
+performance impact of adding kernel code for implementor-specific
+RISC-V extensions, we'll only consider patches for extensions that either:
+
+- Have been officially frozen or ratified by the RISC-V Foundation, or
+- Have been implemented in hardware that is widely available, per standard
+  Linux practice.
+
+(Implementers, may, of course, maintain their own Linux kernel trees containing
+code for any custom extensions that they wish.)