[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091215084032.GA18661@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:40:32 +1100
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] perf_event: Fix incorrect range check on cpu number
It is quite legitimate for CPUs to be numbered sparsely, meaning that
it possible for an online CPU to have a number which is greater than
the total count of possible CPUs.
Currently find_get_context() has a sanity check on the cpu number
where it checks it against num_possible_cpus(). This test can fail
for a legitimate cpu number if the cpu_possible_mask is sparsely
populated.
This fixes the problem by checking the CPU number against
nr_cpumask_bits instead, since that is the appropriate check to ensure
that the cpu number is same to pass to cpu_isset() subsequently.
Reported-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Tested-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc: stable@...nel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
---
kernel/perf_event.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
index 6b7ddba..78551b3 100644
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1604,7 +1604,7 @@ static struct perf_event_context *find_get_context(pid_t pid, int cpu)
if (perf_paranoid_cpu() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
return ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
- if (cpu < 0 || cpu > num_possible_cpus())
+ if (cpu < 0 || cpu >= nr_cpumask_bits)
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists