On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 03:47:05PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) > to consider: > > New issues: > - [High] A logic error in the retry loop of `tracing_buffers_read()` bypasses > `ring_buffer_read_page()` on retry, leaking uninitialized or stale kernel > memory to userspace. > > Pre-existing issues: > - [Critical] A race condition during subbuffer resize causes > `cpu_buffer->free_page` to retain an old allocation size while > `buffer->subbuf_order` reflects the new order, leading to a kernel buffer > overflow. > -- > > --- Patch [5]: [PATCH v4 5/9] tracing: Fix subbuf resize races in > trace_pipe_raw readers --- > commit c5c1a16fabb91c8f580283f14e5e76cc1ccb99b0 > Author: Vincent Donnefort <[email protected]> > > tracing: Fix subbuf resize races in trace_pipe_raw readers > > Concurrent subbuffer resizes may crash trace_pipe_raw readers or leak > uninitialized memory to userspace due to stale size values. > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > > index 94552a433228d..f62d6853ee5c0 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -6988,22 +6988,34 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ring_buffer_swap_cpu); > > * Returns: > > * The page allocated, or ERR_PTR > > */ > > -struct buffer_data_read_page * > > -ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu) > > +struct buffer_data_read_page *ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(struct > > trace_buffer *buffer, int cpu, > > + struct > > buffer_data_read_page *prev) > > { > > + struct buffer_data_read_page *bpage = prev; > > struct ring_buffer_per_cpu *cpu_buffer; > > - struct buffer_data_read_page *bpage = NULL; > > unsigned long flags; > > + unsigned int order; > > > > if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, buffer->cpumask)) > > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > > > - bpage = kzalloc_obj(*bpage); > > - if (!bpage) > > - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > - > > - bpage->order = buffer->subbuf_order; > > + order = buffer->subbuf_order; > > cpu_buffer = buffer->buffers[cpu]; > > + > > + if (!bpage) { > > + bpage = kzalloc_obj(*bpage); > > + if (!bpage) > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > + } else { > > + if (bpage->order == order) > > + return bpage; > > + > > + free_pages((unsigned long)bpage->data, bpage->order); > > + bpage->data = NULL; > > + } > > + > > + bpage->order = order; > > + > > local_irq_save(flags); > > arch_spin_lock(&cpu_buffer->lock); > > > > if (cpu_buffer->free_page) { > > bpage->data = cpu_buffer->free_page; > > cpu_buffer->free_page = NULL; > > } > > [Severity: Critical] > This is a pre-existing issue, but can this lead to an out-of-bounds write > during a subbuffer resize? > > In ring_buffer_alloc_read_page(), the newly read buffer->subbuf_order is > assigned to a page stolen from cpu_buffer->free_page without checking if > their size orders match. > > If a concurrent call to ring_buffer_subbuf_order_set() updates > buffer->subbuf_order locklessly, and this function is called before > cpu_buffer->free_page is cleared, it will steal the old free_page but assign > it the new size order. > > Will this malformed page be swapped into the ring buffer, allowing writers > to write past its actual bounds? > > [ ... ] > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > index 395238b2b715c..0409d20a168bb 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > [ ... ] > > > @@ -7080,8 +7080,8 @@ ssize_t tracing_buffers_read(struct file *filp, char > > __user *ubuf, > > { > > struct ftrace_buffer_info *info = filp->private_data; > > struct trace_iterator *iter = &info->iter; > > - void *trace_data; > > - int page_size; > > + void *trace_data, *prev_spare; > > + unsigned int spare_size; > > ssize_t ret = 0; > > ssize_t size; > > > > @@ -7091,36 +7091,31 @@ ssize_t tracing_buffers_read(struct file *filp, > > char __user *ubuf, > > if (iter->snapshot && tracer_uses_snapshot(iter->tr->current_trace)) > > return -EBUSY; > > > > - page_size = ring_buffer_subbuf_size_get(iter->array_buffer->buffer); > > +again: > > + prev_spare = info->spare; > > + if (prev_spare) { > > + spare_size = ring_buffer_read_page_size(info->spare); > > > > - /* Make sure the spare matches the current sub buffer size */ > > - if (info->spare) { > > - if (page_size != info->spare_size) { > > - ring_buffer_free_read_page(iter->array_buffer->buffer, > > - info->spare_cpu, > > info->spare); > > - info->spare = NULL; > > - } > > + /* Do we have previous read data to read? */ > > + if (info->read < spare_size) > > + goto read; > > } > > [Severity: High] > Can the retry path bypass the actual read function and copy stale data > to userspace? > > When reading from an empty trace_pipe_raw file, ring_buffer_read_page() > returns < 0. The code then blocks in wait_on_pipe(). Once woken up, it > executes a goto again. > > At the again label, info->read is 0 and info->spare is already allocated, > so the condition info->read < spare_size will evaluate to true. > > Does this cause execution to jump directly to the read label, bypassing > ring_buffer_read_page(), and copy the uninitialized or stale info->spare > page to userspace?
Arg, this one is real! > > -- > Sashiko AI review ยท > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=5 -- Vincent
