On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 13:03:48 -0500 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 22:38:43 +0900 > "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]> > > > > Since the MSBs of rb_data_page::commit are used for storing > > RB_MISSED_EVENTS and RB_MISSED_STORED, we need to mask out those bits > > when it is used for finding the size of data pages. > > > > Fixes: 5f3b6e839f3c ("ring-buffer: Validate boot range memory events") > > Fixes: 5b7be9c709e1 ("ring-buffer: Add test to validate the time stamp > > deltas") > > Cc: [email protected] > > This is unneeded for the current way things work. > > The missed events flags are added when a page is read, so the commits in > the write buffer should never have those flags set. If they did, the ring > buffer code itself would break. Hmm, but commit ca296d32ece3 ("tracing: ring_buffer: Rewind persistent ring buffer on reboot") may change it. Maybe we should treat it while unwinding it? > > But as patch 3 is adding a flag, you should likely merge this and patch 3 > together, as the only way that flag would get set is if the validator set > it on a previous boot. And then this would be needed for subsequent boots > that did not reset the buffer. It is OK to combine these 2 patches. But my question is that when the flag must be checked and when it must be ignored. Since the flags are encoded to commit, if that is used for limiting or indexing inside the page, we must mask the flag or check the max size to avoid accessing outside of the subpage. > > Hmm, I don't think we even need to do that! Because if it is set, it would > simply warn again that a page is invalid, and I think we *want* that! As it > would preserve that pages were invalid and not be cleared with a simple > reboot. OK, then I don't mark it, but just invalidate the subpage. Thanks, > > -- Steve > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
