[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170324151227.515108942@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:58:43 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.10 25/27] percpu: acquire pcpu_lock when updating pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages
4.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
commit 320661b08dd6f1746d5c7ab4eb435ec64b97cd45 upstream.
Update to pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages in pcpu_alloc() is currently done
without holding pcpu_lock. This can lead to bad updates to the variable.
Add missing lock calls.
Fixes: b539b87fed37 ("percpu: implmeent pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages and chunk->nr_populated")
Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
mm/percpu.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1011,8 +1011,11 @@ area_found:
mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
}
- if (chunk != pcpu_reserved_chunk)
+ if (chunk != pcpu_reserved_chunk) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages -= occ_pages;
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pcpu_lock, flags);
+ }
if (pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages < PCPU_EMPTY_POP_PAGES_LOW)
pcpu_schedule_balance_work();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists