[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1512493352.18523.180.camel@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:02:32 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 02/96] s390/runtime instrumention: fix possible
memory corruption
On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 11:22 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
>
> commit d6e646ad7cfa7034d280459b2b2546288f247144 upstream.
[...]
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/runtime_instr.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/runtime_instr.c
> @@ -47,11 +47,13 @@ void exit_thread_runtime_instr(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *task = current;
>
> + preempt_disable();
> if (!task->thread.ri_cb)
> return;
This return path now leaves preemption disabled. This seems to have
been fixed upstream by commit 8d9047f8b967 "s390/runtime
instrumentation: simplify task exit handling".
Ben.
> disable_runtime_instr();
> kfree(task->thread.ri_cb);
> task->thread.ri_cb = NULL;
> + preempt_enable();
> }
>
> SYSCALL_DEFINE1(s390_runtime_instr, int, command)
[...]
--
Ben Hutchings
Software Developer, Codethink Ltd.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists