[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171205170847.GA22747@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:08:47 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:02:32PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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".
"simplify" doesn't seem to imply "fixes a bug" :)
Heiko, should I also queue this patch up?
thanks Ben for the review.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists