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, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/rust/helpers/build_assert.c b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6a54b2680
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/build_bug.h>
+
+/*
+ * `bindgen` binds the C `size_t` type as the Rust `usize` type, so we can
+ * use it in contexts where Rust expects a `usize` like slice (array) indices.
+ * `usize` is defined to be the same as C's `uintptr_t` type (can hold any
+ * pointer) but not necessarily the same as `size_t` (can hold the size of any
+ * single object). Most modern platforms use the same concrete integer type for
+ * both of them, but in case we find ourselves on a platform where
+ * that's not true, fail early instead of risking ABI or
+ * integer-overflow issues.
+ *
+ * If your platform fails this assertion, it means that you are in
+ * danger of integer-overflow bugs (even if you attempt to add
+ * `--no-size_t-is-usize`). It may be easiest to change the kernel ABI on
+ * your platform such that `size_t` matches `uintptr_t` (i.e., to increase
+ * `size_t`, because `uintptr_t` has to be at least as big as `size_t`).
+ */
+static_assert(
+	sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(uintptr_t) &&
+	__alignof__(size_t) == __alignof__(uintptr_t),
+	"Rust code expects C `size_t` to match Rust `usize`"
+);