The patch titled
Subject: kernel/async.c: revert "async: simplify lowest_in_progress()"
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: kernel/async.c: revert "async: simplify lowest_in_progress()"
This reverts 92266d6ef60c2381 ("async: simplify lowest_in_progress()"),
which was simply wrong: In the case where domain is NULL, we now use the
wrong offsetof() in the list_first_entry macro, so we don't actually fetch
the ->cookie value, but rather the eight bytes located sizeof(struct
list_head) further into the struct async_entry.
On 64 bit, that's the data member, while on 32 bit, that's a u64 built
from func and data in some order.
I think the bug happens to be harmless in practice: It obviously only
affects callers which pass a NULL domain, and AFAICT the only such caller
is
async_synchronize_full() ->
async_synchronize_full_domain(NULL) ->
async_synchronize_cookie_domain(ASYNC_COOKIE_MAX, NULL)
and the ASYNC_COOKIE_MAX means that in practice we end up waiting for the
async_global_pending list to be empty - but it would break if somebody
happened to pass (void*)-1 as the data element to async_schedule, and of
course also if somebody ever does a async_synchronize_cookie_domain(,
NULL) with a "finite" cookie value.
Maybe the "harmless in practice" means this isn't -stable material. But
I'm not completely confident my quick git grep'ing is enough, and there
might be affected code in one of the earlier kernels that has since been
removed, so I'll leave the decision to the stable guys.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171128104938.3921-1-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 92266d6ef60c "async: simplify lowest_in_progress()"
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Adam Wallis <awallis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [3.10+]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/async.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/async.c~revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress kernel/async.c
--- a/kernel/async.c~revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress
+++ a/kernel/async.c
@@ -84,20 +84,24 @@ static atomic_t entry_count;
static async_cookie_t lowest_in_progress(struct async_domain *domain)
{
- struct list_head *pending;
+ struct async_entry *first = NULL;
async_cookie_t ret = ASYNC_COOKIE_MAX;
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&async_lock, flags);
- if (domain)
- pending = &domain->pending;
- else
- pending = &async_global_pending;
+ if (domain) {
+ if (!list_empty(&domain->pending))
+ first = list_first_entry(&domain->pending,
+ struct async_entry, domain_list);
+ } else {
+ if (!list_empty(&async_global_pending))
+ first = list_first_entry(&async_global_pending,
+ struct async_entry, global_list);
+ }
- if (!list_empty(pending))
- ret = list_first_entry(pending, struct async_entry,
- domain_list)->cookie;
+ if (first)
+ ret = first->cookie;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&async_lock, flags);
return ret;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
revert-async-simplify-lowest_in_progress.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
