Re: [PATCH 4.4 02/96] s390/runtime instrumention: fix possible memory corruption

[Heiko Carstens]

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 08:44:53AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 07:15:34PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 06:08:47PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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" :)
> > 
> > Indeed ;) That where two subsequent patches, but incorrectly split by me...
> > 
> > > Heiko, should I also queue this patch up?
> > 
> > Yes, please.
> 
> It doesn't apply to 4.9-stable or 4.4-stable, can you provide a working
> backport?

And here the one for 4.9-stable: