[00/11] -stable review
Greg KH
There are 8 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the Bcc:
line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email sta...@linux.com to
add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list,
also email us.
Responses should be made by Thursday, April 7, 17:00 UTC. Anything
received after that time, might be too late.
thanks,
the -stable release team
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Greg KH
------------------
Attached is a patch against David's audit.17 kernel that adds checks
for the TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT thread flag to the ia64 system call and
signal handling code paths. The patch enables auditing of system
calls set up via fsys_bubble_down, as well as ensuring that
audit_syscall_exit() is called on return from sigreturn.
Neglecting to check for TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT at these points results in
incorrect information in audit_context, causing frequent system panics
when system call auditing is enabled on an ia64 system.
I have tested this patch and have seen no problems with it.
[Original patch from Amy Griffis ported to current kernel by David Woodhouse]
From: Amy Griffis <amy.g...@hp.com>
From: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chr...@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@suse.de>
--- 1.34/arch/ia64/kernel/fsys.S 2005-01-22 22:19:11 +00:00
+++ edited/arch/ia64/kernel/fsys.S 2005-04-01 00:20:32 +01:00
@@ -611,8 +611,10 @@
movl r2=ia64_ret_from_syscall
;;
mov rp=r2 // set the real return addr
- tbit.z p8,p0=r3,TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE
+ and r3=_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEAUDIT,r3
;;
+ cmp.eq p8,p0=r3,r0
+
(p10) br.cond.spnt.many ia64_ret_from_syscall // p10==true means out registers are more than 8
(p8) br.call.sptk.many b6=b6 // ignore this return addr
br.cond.sptk ia64_trace_syscall
===== arch/ia64/kernel/signal.c 1.49 vs edited =====
--- 1.49/arch/ia64/kernel/signal.c 2005-01-25 20:23:45 +00:00
+++ edited/arch/ia64/kernel/signal.c 2005-04-01 00:18:29 +01:00
@@ -224,7 +224,8 @@
* could be corrupted.
*/
retval = (long) &ia64_leave_kernel;
- if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
+ if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)
+ || test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT))
/*
* strace expects to be notified after sigreturn returns even though the
* context to which we return may not be in the middle of a syscall.
Greg KH
------------------
We should merge this backport - it's needed to prevent deadlocks when
dio_complete() does up_read() from IRQ context. And perhaps other places.
From: David Howells <dhow...@redhat.com>
[PATCH] rwsem: Make rwsems use interrupt disabling spinlocks
The attached patch makes read/write semaphores use interrupt disabling
spinlocks in the slow path, thus rendering the up functions and trylock
functions available for use in interrupt context. This matches the
regular semaphore behaviour.
I've assumed that the normal down functions must be called with interrupts
enabled (since they might schedule), and used the irq-disabling spinlock
variants that don't save the flags.
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <dhow...@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Badari Pulavarty <pba...@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torv...@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chr...@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@suse.de>
diff -Nru a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c
--- a/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c 2005-04-01 23:22:40 -08:00
+++ b/lib/rwsem-spinlock.c 2005-04-01 23:22:40 -08:00
@@ -140,12 +140,12 @@
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __down_read");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (sem->activity >= 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
/* granted */
sem->activity++;
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
goto out;
}
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
/* we don't need to touch the semaphore struct anymore */
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
/* wait to be given the lock */
for (;;) {
@@ -181,10 +181,12 @@
*/
int fastcall __down_read_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
int ret = 0;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __down_read_trylock");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
if (sem->activity >= 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
/* granted */
@@ -192,7 +194,7 @@
ret = 1;
}
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving __down_read_trylock");
return ret;
@@ -209,12 +211,12 @@
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __down_write");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
/* granted */
sem->activity = -1;
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
goto out;
}
@@ -229,7 +231,7 @@
list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
/* we don't need to touch the semaphore struct anymore */
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
/* wait to be given the lock */
for (;;) {
@@ -250,10 +252,12 @@
*/
int fastcall __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
int ret = 0;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __down_write_trylock");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
if (sem->activity == 0 && list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
/* granted */
@@ -261,7 +265,7 @@
ret = 1;
}
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving __down_write_trylock");
return ret;
@@ -272,14 +276,16 @@
*/
void fastcall __up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __up_read");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
if (--sem->activity == 0 && !list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem = __rwsem_wake_one_writer(sem);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving __up_read");
}
@@ -289,15 +295,17 @@
*/
void fastcall __up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __up_write");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
sem->activity = 0;
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, 1);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving __up_write");
}
@@ -308,15 +316,17 @@
*/
void fastcall __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering __downgrade_write");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
sem->activity = 1;
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, 0);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving __downgrade_write");
}
diff -Nru a/lib/rwsem.c b/lib/rwsem.c
--- a/lib/rwsem.c 2005-04-01 23:22:40 -08:00
+++ b/lib/rwsem.c 2005-04-01 23:22:40 -08:00
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@
set_task_state(tsk, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
/* set up my own style of waitqueue */
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
waiter->task = tsk;
get_task_struct(tsk);
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@
if (!(count & RWSEM_ACTIVE_MASK))
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, 0);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
/* wait to be given the lock */
for (;;) {
@@ -219,15 +219,17 @@
*/
struct rw_semaphore fastcall *rwsem_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering rwsem_wake");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
/* do nothing if list empty */
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, 0);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving rwsem_wake");
@@ -241,15 +243,17 @@
*/
struct rw_semaphore fastcall *rwsem_downgrade_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
rwsemtrace(sem, "Entering rwsem_downgrade_wake");
- spin_lock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
/* do nothing if list empty */
if (!list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
sem = __rwsem_do_wake(sem, 1);
- spin_unlock(&sem->wait_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
rwsemtrace(sem, "Leaving rwsem_downgrade_wake");
return sem;
Greg KH
Hm, sorry about the wrong subject, there were only 8 patches.
And here's a diffstat of all of them, just to make this email worth
reading and not just an apology:
lib/rwsem-spinlock.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
lib/rwsem.c | 16 ++++++++++------
net/ipv4/xfrm4_output.c | 12 ++++++------
net/ipv6/xfrm6_output.c | 12 ++++++------
arch/um/kernel/skas/uaccess.c | 3 ++-
arch/ia64/kernel/fsys.S | 4 +++-
arch/ia64/kernel/signal.c | 3 ++-
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 5 ++++-
fs/jbd/transaction.c | 6 +++---
drivers/i2c/chips/eeprom.c | 3 ++-
sound/core/timer.c | 5 ++++-
11 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
thanks,
greg k-h
David Mosberger
Greg> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
Greg> let us know.
Nitpick: the patch introduces trailing whitespace.
Why doesn't everybody use emacs and enable show-trailing-whitespace? ;-)
--david
Greg KH
> >>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:46:48 -0700, Greg KH <gre...@suse.de> said:
>
> Greg> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
> Greg> let us know.
>
> Nitpick: the patch introduces trailing whitespace.
Sorry about that, I've removed it from the patch now.
> Why doesn't everybody use emacs and enable show-trailing-whitespace? ;-)
Because some of us use vim and ":set list" to see it, when we remember
to... :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Randy.Dunlap
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:27 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:46:48 -0700, Greg KH <gre...@suse.de> said:
>>
>> Greg> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
>> Greg> let us know.
>>
>>Nitpick: the patch introduces trailing whitespace.
>
>
> Sorry about that, I've removed it from the patch now.
>
>
>>Why doesn't everybody use emacs and enable show-trailing-whitespace? ;-)
>
>
> Because some of us use vim and ":set list" to see it, when we remember
> to... :)
others check received patches with a script instead of....
no, let's not debate $EDITOR.
--
~Randy
Ryan Anderson
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:27 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> > >>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:46:48 -0700, Greg KH <gre...@suse.de> said:
> >
> > Greg> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
> > Greg> let us know.
> >
> > Nitpick: the patch introduces trailing whitespace.
>
> Sorry about that, I've removed it from the patch now.
>
> > Why doesn't everybody use emacs and enable show-trailing-whitespace? ;-)
>
> Because some of us use vim and ":set list" to see it, when we remember
> to... :)
Try adding this to your .vimrc:
highlight WhitespaceEOL ctermbg=red guibg=red
match WhitespaceEOL /\s\+$/
Then you'll have to resist the urge to fix whitespace issues instead of
not seeing them at all.
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
Greg KH
> highlight WhitespaceEOL ctermbg=red guibg=red
> match WhitespaceEOL /\s\+$/
Very nice, thanks a lot for that.
greg k-h
Dave Jones
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 19:46 -0400, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> > highlight WhitespaceEOL ctermbg=red guibg=red
> > match WhitespaceEOL /\s\+$/
>
> Very nice, thanks a lot for that.
Dave
Andrew Morton
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:49:18PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:27 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:46:48 -0700, Greg KH <gre...@suse.de> said:
> > >
> > > Greg> -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please
> > > Greg> let us know.
> > >
> > > Nitpick: the patch introduces trailing whitespace.
> >
> > Sorry about that, I've removed it from the patch now.
> >
> > > Why doesn't everybody use emacs and enable show-trailing-whitespace? ;-)
> >
> > Because some of us use vim and ":set list" to see it, when we remember
> > to... :)
>
> Try adding this to your .vimrc:
>
> highlight WhitespaceEOL ctermbg=red guibg=red
> match WhitespaceEOL /\s\+$/
>
> Then you'll have to resist the urge to fix whitespace issues instead of
> not seeing them at all.
>
Yeah, that's a risk. But gratuitous trailing whitespace changes shouldn't
cause a lot of downstream problems due to `patch -l'.
What I do is to ensure that we never _add_ trailing whitespace. So
anything which matches
^+.*[tab or space]$
gets trimmed. My theory is that after 10 years of this, all the trailing
whitespace will be gone. Problem is, I also see the hundreds of lines of
code in the bk patches which add trailing whitespace :(
Larry sent me a little bk script which would spam the user if they tried to
commit something which adds trailing whitespace, but maybe that's a bit
academic right now.