On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 12:42 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> Don't acquire ashmem_mutex in ashmem_shrink if we've somehow recursed into the
> shrinker code from within ashmem. Just bail out, avoiding a deadlock. This is
> fine, as ashmem cache pruning is advisory anyhow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert Love <rlove@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
This is not the correct way to submit a change to stable. See
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
Ben.
> drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> index 634b9ae..a057cf3 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ashmem.c
> @@ -363,7 +363,11 @@ static int ashmem_shrink(struct shrinker *s, struct shrink_control *sc)
> if (!sc->nr_to_scan)
> return lru_count;
>
> - mutex_lock(&ashmem_mutex);
> + /* avoid recursing into this code from within ashmem itself */
> + if (!mutex_trylock(&ashmem_mutex)) {
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> list_for_each_entry_safe(range, next, &ashmem_lru_list, lru) {
> loff_t start = range->pgstart * PAGE_SIZE;
> loff_t end = (range->pgend + 1) * PAGE_SIZE;
--
Ben Hutchings
Knowledge is power. France is bacon.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part