[PATCH 0/1] ring-buffer: Fix sub-buffer order updates and free_page leaks

[PATCH 0/1] ring-buffer: Fix sub-buffer order updates and free_page leaks

[Masami Hiramatsu (Google)]

Hi Vincent,

Here is my patch to fix the race and free_page problem.
Let's see what Sashiko says for this.

Thank you,

---
base-commit: 3d6d817622b0a9721e3cc404df3469171582be13

Masami Hiramatsu (Google) (1):
      ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers


 kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

--
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

[PATCH] ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers

[Masami Hiramatsu (Google)]

From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

When ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() updates buffer->subbuf_order, it
previously modified buffer->subbuf_order before clearing the cached
per-CPU free_page entries. Furthermore, clearing cpu_buffer->free_page
was done under cpu_buffer->reader_lock, whereas
ring_buffer_alloc_read_page() protects cpu_buffer->free_page using
arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock).

Because ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(), ring_buffer_free_read_page(),
and ring_buffer_read_page() checked buffer->subbuf_order locklessly
before accessing reader resources, a TOCTOU race allowed a concurrent
reader to obtain, cache, or swap a page allocated under an outdated order
while tagging bpage->order with the new order. This allowed undersized
pages to be swapped into the ring buffer, leading to heap buffer overflows,
or caused free_pages() to be called with an invalid order.

Fix this by:
1. Flushing and freeing all per-CPU cached free_page entries under
   arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) using old_order before modifying
   buffer->subbuf_order.
2. Protecting bpage->order assignment under
   arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_alloc_read_page().
3. Moving the buffer->subbuf_order validation inside
   arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_free_read_page().
4. Re-validating buffer->subbuf_order inside reader_lock in
   ring_buffer_read_page().
5. Protecting cpu_buffer->free_page extraction with
   arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set().

Fixes: 2808e31ec12e ("ring-buffer: Add interface for configuring trace sub buffer size")
Assisted-by: Antigravity:gemini-3.6-flash
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
index 2667992f0aa2..6d180689ad59 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
@@ -6957,11 +6957,11 @@ ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
 	if (!bpage)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 
-	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
 	cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
 	local_irq_save(flags);
 	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
 
+	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
 	if (cpu_buffer->free_page) {
 		bpage->data = cpu_buffer->free_page;
 		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
@@ -7010,13 +7010,13 @@ void ring_buffer_free_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu,
 	 * is different from the subbuffer order of the buffer -
 	 * we can't reuse it
 	 */
-	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1 || data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
+	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1)
 		goto out;
 
 	local_irq_save(flags);
 	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
 
-	if (!cpu_buffer->free_page) {
+	if (data_page->order == buffer->subbuf_order && !cpu_buffer->free_page) {
 		cpu_buffer->free_page = dpage;
 		dpage = NULL;
 	}
@@ -7094,15 +7094,15 @@ int ring_buffer_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer,
 	if (!data_page || !data_page->data)
 		return -1;
 
-	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
-		return -1;
-
 	dpage = data_page->data;
 	if (!dpage)
 		return -1;
 
 	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock);
 
+	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
+		return -1;
+
 	reader = rb_get_reader_page(cpu_buffer);
 	if (!reader)
 		return -1;
@@ -7350,6 +7350,27 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
 	/* Make sure all commits have finished */
 	synchronize_rcu();
 
+	/* Flush any cached free_page allocated with old_order */
+	for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) {
+		struct buffer_data_page *old_free;
+		unsigned long flags;
+
+		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, buffer->cpumask))
+			continue;
+
+		cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
+
+		local_irq_save(flags);
+		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
+		old_free = cpu_buffer->free_page;
+		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
+		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
+		local_irq_restore(flags);
+
+		if (old_free)
+			free_pages((unsigned long)old_free, old_order);
+	}
+
 	buffer->subbuf_order = order;
 	buffer->subbuf_size = psize - BUF_PAGE_HDR_SIZE;
 
@@ -7431,8 +7452,10 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
 		cpu_buffer->nr_pages = cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update;
 		cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update = 0;
 
+		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
 		old_free_data_page = cpu_buffer->free_page;
 		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
+		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
 
 		rb_head_page_activate(cpu_buffer);
 

Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 5 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [Critical] Structural TOCTOU race: global order and size are updated before replacing per-CPU buffer pages, leading to Heap Buffer Overflow.
- [High] Incomplete TOCTOU fix: alloc_cpu_data() evaluates buffer->subbuf_order locklessly, causing bpage->order mismatch.
- [High] Race window between pre-flush loop and buffer->subbuf_order update allows caching undersized pages.
- [High] Post-update flush loop unconditionally frees newly cached pages using old_order.
- [High] Error path fails to flush cached pages when rolling back to old_order.
--

--- Patch [1]: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers ---
commit d1c3f71c852aab912bda60e5894b681e43da7c7b
Author: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers

This commit attempts to fix a TOCTOU race condition in the ring buffer code
by ensuring that the per-CPU free_page cache is flushed and protected by
the cpu_buffer lock during order changes. It also updates reader functions
to validate the page order under the same lock to prevent using mismatched
page sizes.

> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index c2c57fbf6f448..9a11c663cff5b 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -6957,11 +6957,11 @@ ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
>  	if (!bpage)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
>  	cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  
> +	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
>  	if (cpu_buffer->free_page) {
>  		bpage->data = cpu_buffer->free_page;
>  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
>  	}

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this locklessly evaluate
buffer->subbuf_order after dropping the lock?

Looking at the code just below this hunk in ring_buffer_alloc_read_page():

	arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
	local_irq_restore(flags);

	if (bpage->data) {
		rb_init_data_page(bpage->data);
	} else {
		bpage->data = alloc_cpu_data(cpu, cpu_buffer->buffer->subbuf_order);
		...

If a concurrent writer changes the global order after the lock is dropped but
before alloc_cpu_data() evaluates the argument, the allocated page size will
mismatch the stored bpage->order.

When ring_buffer_free_read_page() later frees this page using bpage->order, it
could free a mismatched page size and corrupt the buddy allocator.

[ ... ]
> @@ -7350,6 +7350,27 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
>  	/* Make sure all commits have finished */
>  	synchronize_rcu();
>  
> +	/* Flush any cached free_page allocated with old_order */
> +	for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) {
> +		struct buffer_data_page *old_free;
> +		unsigned long flags;
> +
> +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, buffer->cpumask))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
> +
> +		local_irq_save(flags);
> +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> +		old_free = cpu_buffer->free_page;
> +		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +		if (old_free)
> +			free_pages((unsigned long)old_free, old_order);
> +	}
> +
>  	buffer->subbuf_order = order;
>  	buffer->subbuf_size = psize - BUF_PAGE_HDR_SIZE;

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does updating the global order
after the flush loop leave a race window?

During the unprotected window between the flush loop completing and updating
buffer->subbuf_order, the global order is still old_order.

A concurrent reader could call ring_buffer_free_read_page(), see that
data_page->order matches buffer->subbuf_order (both old), and cache an
old_order page back into cpu_buffer->free_page.

Once the order is updated below, subsequent readers might extract this cached
old_order page, tag it with the new order, and eventually free it with the new
order, causing buddy allocator corruption.

[Severity: Critical]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does updating the global order
and size here, before replacing per-CPU buffer pages, create a structural
race?

If a concurrent reader calls ring_buffer_read_page(), it validates its
new-order data_page against the new global order and swaps it into the ring
buffer. It extracts the old, unreplaced reader->page into dpage.

If the buffer is expanding, dpage is an undersized old-order page.

However, the reader executes memset() using the prematurely updated global
buffer->subbuf_size:

ring_buffer_read_page():
	if (size < buffer->subbuf_size)
		memset(&dpage->data[size], 0, buffer->subbuf_size - size);

This would blindly write zeroes far beyond the bounds of the extracted
old-order dpage, resulting in a heap buffer overflow reachable via
unprivileged tracefs reads.

[ ... ]
> @@ -7431,8 +7452,10 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
>  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages = cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update;
>  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update = 0;
>  
> +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  		old_free_data_page = cpu_buffer->free_page;
>  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  
>  		rb_head_page_activate(cpu_buffer);

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does this second flush loop
unconditionally free potentially new-order pages with old_order?

After the global order is set to new_order, this function performs a sleepable
allocation loop (__rb_allocate_pages). During this time, concurrent readers
can allocate and free new_order pages, successfully caching them into
cpu_buffer->free_page.

When this code extracts cpu_buffer->free_page and subsequently frees it down
below:

	free_pages((unsigned long)old_free_data_page, old_order);

It blindly forces what could be a new_order page to be freed with old_order,
corrupting the buddy allocator.

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the error path fail to
flush cached pages when rolling back?

If __rb_allocate_pages() fails, the code jumps to the error label and restores
buffer->subbuf_order = old_order:

ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set():
error:
	buffer->subbuf_order = old_order;
	buffer->subbuf_size = old_size;

During the window where it was new_order, concurrent readers may have cached
new_order pages into cpu_buffer->free_page. The error path returns without
flushing cpu_buffer->free_page.

Subsequent readers would extract these new_order pages, tag them as old_order,
and free them with old_order, causing a memory leak (if expanding) or allocator
corruption (if shrinking).

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/178663777320.475864.4716637934003507750.stgit@devnote2?part=1

Re: [PATCH 0/1] ring-buffer: Fix sub-buffer order updates and free_page leaks

[Vincent Donnefort]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 01:16:03AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
> 
> Here is my patch to fix the race and free_page problem.
> Let's see what Sashiko says for this.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 3d6d817622b0a9721e3cc404df3469171582be13
> 
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) (1):
>       ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers
> 
> 
>  kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>

Sorry I am not sure to understand what is wrong with that series I made here?

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260813131152.3589632-1-vdonnefort@google.com/

-- 
Vincent

Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 01:16:13 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:

> From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> 
> When ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() updates buffer->subbuf_order, it
> previously modified buffer->subbuf_order before clearing the cached
> per-CPU free_page entries. Furthermore, clearing cpu_buffer->free_page
> was done under cpu_buffer->reader_lock, whereas
> ring_buffer_alloc_read_page() protects cpu_buffer->free_page using
> arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock).
> 
> Because ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(), ring_buffer_free_read_page(),
> and ring_buffer_read_page() checked buffer->subbuf_order locklessly
> before accessing reader resources, a TOCTOU race allowed a concurrent
> reader to obtain, cache, or swap a page allocated under an outdated order
> while tagging bpage->order with the new order. This allowed undersized
> pages to be swapped into the ring buffer, leading to heap buffer overflows,
> or caused free_pages() to be called with an invalid order.
> 
> Fix this by:
> 1. Flushing and freeing all per-CPU cached free_page entries under
>    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) using old_order before modifying
>    buffer->subbuf_order.
> 2. Protecting bpage->order assignment under
>    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_alloc_read_page().
> 3. Moving the buffer->subbuf_order validation inside
>    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_free_read_page().
> 4. Re-validating buffer->subbuf_order inside reader_lock in
>    ring_buffer_read_page().
> 5. Protecting cpu_buffer->free_page extraction with
>    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set().
> 
> Fixes: 2808e31ec12e ("ring-buffer: Add interface for configuring trace sub buffer size")
> Assisted-by: Antigravity:gemini-3.6-flash
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> ---


Please rebase on top of ring-buffer/for-next, as I added Vincent's patches to that.

>  kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index 2667992f0aa2..6d180689ad59 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -6957,11 +6957,11 @@ ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
>  	if (!bpage)
>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>  
> -	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
>  	cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  
> +	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;

This is still needed.

>  	if (cpu_buffer->free_page) {
>  		bpage->data = cpu_buffer->free_page;
>  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> @@ -7010,13 +7010,13 @@ void ring_buffer_free_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu,
>  	 * is different from the subbuffer order of the buffer -
>  	 * we can't reuse it
>  	 */
> -	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1 || data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> +	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1)
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  
> -	if (!cpu_buffer->free_page) {
> +	if (data_page->order == buffer->subbuf_order && !cpu_buffer->free_page) {

Swap the order please. It has to check both to continue and if one fails it
will not continue. Checking for cpu_buffer->free_page to be NULL first is
the quicker check. And also the more likely one to fail.

>  		cpu_buffer->free_page = dpage;
>  		dpage = NULL;
>  	}
> @@ -7094,15 +7094,15 @@ int ring_buffer_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer,
>  	if (!data_page || !data_page->data)
>  		return -1;
>  
> -	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> -		return -1;
> -
>  	dpage = data_page->data;
>  	if (!dpage)
>  		return -1;
>  
>  	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock);
>  
> +	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> +		return -1;
> +
>  	reader = rb_get_reader_page(cpu_buffer);
>  	if (!reader)
>  		return -1;
> @@ -7350,6 +7350,27 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
>  	/* Make sure all commits have finished */
>  	synchronize_rcu();
>  
> +	/* Flush any cached free_page allocated with old_order */
> +	for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) {
> +		struct buffer_data_page *old_free;
> +		unsigned long flags;
> +
> +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, buffer->cpumask))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
> +
> +		local_irq_save(flags);
> +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> +		old_free = cpu_buffer->free_page;
> +		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +		if (old_free)
> +			free_pages((unsigned long)old_free, old_order);
> +	}

Honestly, this should be a separate patch. The first part of this patch is
data races with adding and freeing, but this is about changes to the size.

> +
>  	buffer->subbuf_order = order;
>  	buffer->subbuf_size = psize - BUF_PAGE_HDR_SIZE;
>  
> @@ -7431,8 +7452,10 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
>  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages = cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update;
>  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update = 0;
>  
> +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
>  		old_free_data_page = cpu_buffer->free_page;
>  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);

This is already fixed by Vincent (and I would have asked this to be a
separate patch too if it hadn't).

-- Steve

>  
>  		rb_head_page_activate(cpu_buffer);
>  

Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: Fix race between ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() and readers

[Vincent Donnefort]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 10:42:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 01:16:13 +0900
> "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > 
> > When ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() updates buffer->subbuf_order, it
> > previously modified buffer->subbuf_order before clearing the cached
> > per-CPU free_page entries. Furthermore, clearing cpu_buffer->free_page
> > was done under cpu_buffer->reader_lock, whereas
> > ring_buffer_alloc_read_page() protects cpu_buffer->free_page using
> > arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock).
> > 
> > Because ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(), ring_buffer_free_read_page(),
> > and ring_buffer_read_page() checked buffer->subbuf_order locklessly
> > before accessing reader resources, a TOCTOU race allowed a concurrent
> > reader to obtain, cache, or swap a page allocated under an outdated order
> > while tagging bpage->order with the new order. This allowed undersized
> > pages to be swapped into the ring buffer, leading to heap buffer overflows,
> > or caused free_pages() to be called with an invalid order.
> > 
> > Fix this by:
> > 1. Flushing and freeing all per-CPU cached free_page entries under
> >    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) using old_order before modifying
> >    buffer->subbuf_order.
> > 2. Protecting bpage->order assignment under
> >    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_alloc_read_page().
> > 3. Moving the buffer->subbuf_order validation inside
> >    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_free_read_page().
> > 4. Re-validating buffer->subbuf_order inside reader_lock in
> >    ring_buffer_read_page().
> > 5. Protecting cpu_buffer->free_page extraction with
> >    arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock) in ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set().
> > 
> > Fixes: 2808e31ec12e ("ring-buffer: Add interface for configuring trace sub buffer size")
> > Assisted-by: Antigravity:gemini-3.6-flash
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> 
> Please rebase on top of ring-buffer/for-next, as I added Vincent's patches to that.
> 
> >  kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c |   35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > index 2667992f0aa2..6d180689ad59 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> > @@ -6957,11 +6957,11 @@ ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu)
> >  	if (!bpage)
> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >  
> > -	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
> >  	cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
> >  	local_irq_save(flags);
> >  	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> >  
> > +	bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order;
> 
> This is still needed.

I am not sure, the lock is per-cpu_buffer but subbuf_order. is global to
trace_buffer?

> 
> >  	if (cpu_buffer->free_page) {
> >  		bpage->data = cpu_buffer->free_page;
> >  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> > @@ -7010,13 +7010,13 @@ void ring_buffer_free_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu,
> >  	 * is different from the subbuffer order of the buffer -
> >  	 * we can't reuse it
> >  	 */
> > -	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1 || data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> > +	if (page_ref_count(page) > 1)
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> >  	local_irq_save(flags);
> >  	arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> >  
> > -	if (!cpu_buffer->free_page) {
> > +	if (data_page->order == buffer->subbuf_order && !cpu_buffer->free_page) {
> 
> Swap the order please. It has to check both to continue and if one fails it
> will not continue. Checking for cpu_buffer->free_page to be NULL first is
> the quicker check. And also the more likely one to fail.
> 
> >  		cpu_buffer->free_page = dpage;
> >  		dpage = NULL;
> >  	}
> > @@ -7094,15 +7094,15 @@ int ring_buffer_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer,
> >  	if (!data_page || !data_page->data)
> >  		return -1;
> >  
> > -	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> > -		return -1;
> > -
> >  	dpage = data_page->data;
> >  	if (!dpage)
> >  		return -1;
> >  
> >  	guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&cpu_buffer->reader_lock);
> >  
> > +	if (data_page->order != buffer->subbuf_order)
> > +		return -1;
> > +

I have modified this as part of 

tracing: Fix subbuf resize races with trace_pipe_raw readers 

> >  	reader = rb_get_reader_page(cpu_buffer);
> >  	if (!reader)
> >  		return -1;
> > @@ -7350,6 +7350,27 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
> >  	/* Make sure all commits have finished */
> >  	synchronize_rcu();
> >  
> > +	/* Flush any cached free_page allocated with old_order */
> > +	for_each_buffer_cpu(buffer, cpu) {
> > +		struct buffer_data_page *old_free;
> > +		unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, buffer->cpumask))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu];
> > +
> > +		local_irq_save(flags);
> > +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> > +		old_free = cpu_buffer->free_page;
> > +		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> > +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> > +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > +
> > +		if (old_free)
> > +			free_pages((unsigned long)old_free, old_order);
> > +	}
> 
> Honestly, this should be a separate patch. The first part of this patch is
> data races with adding and freeing, but this is about changes to the size.
> 
> > +
> >  	buffer->subbuf_order = order;
> >  	buffer->subbuf_size = psize - BUF_PAGE_HDR_SIZE;
> >  
> > @@ -7431,8 +7452,10 @@ int ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int order)
> >  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages = cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update;
> >  		cpu_buffer->nr_pages_to_update = 0;
> >  
> > +		arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> >  		old_free_data_page = cpu_buffer->free_page;
> >  		cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL;
> > +		arch_spin_unlock(&cpu_buffer->lock);
> 
> This is already fixed by Vincent (and I would have asked this to be a
> separate patch too if it hadn't).
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> >  
> >  		rb_head_page_activate(cpu_buffer);
> >  
> 

-- 
Vincent