[patch 125/164] perf: Fix signed comparison in perf_adjust_period()

[Greg KH]

2.6.33-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>

commit f6ab91add6355e231e1c47897027b2a6ee4fa268 upstream.

Frederic reported that frequency driven swevents didn't work properly
and even caused a division-by-zero error.

It turns out there are two bugs, the division-by-zero comes from a
failure to deal with that in perf_calculate_period().

The other was more interesting and turned out to be a wrong comparison
in perf_adjust_period(). The comparison was between an s64 and u64 and
got implicitly converted to an unsigned comparison. The problem is
that period_left is typically < 0, so it ended up being always true.

Cure this by making the local period variables s64.

Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>

---
 kernel/perf_event.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1417,13 +1417,16 @@ do {					\
 		divisor = nsec * frequency;
 	}
 
+	if (!divisor)
+		return dividend;
+
 	return div64_u64(dividend, divisor);
 }
 
 static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
 {
 	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
-	u64 period, sample_period;
+	s64 period, sample_period;
 	s64 delta;
 
 	period = perf_calculate_period(event, nsec, count);


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/