Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1526673 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal

Started byTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
First post2016-11-21 14:30 +0100
Last post2016-11-22 07:40 +0100
Articles 10 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2016-11-21 14:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2016-11-21 14:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-11-22 01:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-11-22 02:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 02:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2016-11-22 07:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:40 +0100

#1526673 — [PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal

FromTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Date2016-11-21 14:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH] zram: Fix unbalanced idr management at hot removal
Message-ID<sFWPv-1GV-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
The zram hot removal code calls idr_remove() even when zram_remove()
returns an error (typically -EBUSY).  This results in a leftover at
the device release, eventually leading to a crash when the module is
reloaded.

As described in the bug report below, the following procedure would
cause an Oops with zram:

- provision three zram devices via modprobe zram num_devices=3
- configure a size for each device
  + echo "1G" > /sys/block/$zram_name/disksize
- mkfs and mount zram0 only
- attempt to hot remove all three devices
  + echo 2 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
  + echo 1 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
  + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
     - zram0 removal fails with EBUSY, as expected
- unmount zram0
- try zram0 hot remove again
  + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
     - fails with ENODEV (unexpected)
- unload zram kernel module
  + completes successfully
- zram0 device node still exists
- attempt to mount /dev/zram0
  + mount command is killed
  + following BUG is encountered

 BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffa0002ba0
 IP: [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
 Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
 CPU: 0 PID: 252 Comm: mount Not tainted 4.9.0-rc6 #176
 task: ffff88001a9f2800 task.stack: ffffc90000300000
 RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812eead6>]  [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
 Call Trace:
  [<ffffffff812eeb1c>] exact_lock+0xc/0x20
  [<ffffffff813b3e1c>] kobj_lookup+0xdc/0x160
  [<ffffffff812edce0>] ? disk_map_sector_rcu+0x70/0x70
  [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
  [<ffffffff812eef4f>] get_gendisk+0x2f/0x110
  [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
  [<ffffffff81126e2c>] __blkdev_get+0x10c/0x3c0
  [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
  [<ffffffff8112727d>] blkdev_get+0x19d/0x2e0
  [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
  [<ffffffff81127466>] blkdev_open+0x56/0x70
  [<ffffffff810f3e0f>] do_dentry_open.isra.19+0x1ff/0x310
  [<ffffffff810f4aa3>] vfs_open+0x43/0x60
  [<ffffffff81103009>] path_openat+0x2c9/0xf30
  [<ffffffff81023c00>] ? __save_stack_trace+0x40/0xd0
  [<ffffffff81104b79>] do_filp_open+0x79/0xd0
  [<ffffffff81538219>] ? kmemleak_alloc+0x49/0xa0
  [<ffffffff810f4e44>] do_sys_open+0x114/0x1e0
  [<ffffffff810f4f29>] SyS_open+0x19/0x20
  [<ffffffff8153c2e0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94

This patch adds the proper error check in hot_remove_store() not to
call idr_remove() unconditionally.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
---
 drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index 04365b17ee67..5163c8f918cb 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -1403,7 +1403,8 @@ static ssize_t hot_remove_store(struct class *class,
 	zram = idr_find(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
 	if (zram) {
 		ret = zram_remove(zram);
-		idr_remove(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
+		if (!ret)
+			idr_remove(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
 	} else {
 		ret = -ENODEV;
 	}
-- 
2.10.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1526681

FromTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Date2016-11-21 14:50 +0100
Message-ID<sFX8R-1Nh-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1526673
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 14:21:40 +0100,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
> 
> The zram hot removal code calls idr_remove() even when zram_remove()
> returns an error (typically -EBUSY).  This results in a leftover at
> the device release, eventually leading to a crash when the module is
> reloaded.
> 
> As described in the bug report below, the following procedure would
> cause an Oops with zram:
> 
> - provision three zram devices via modprobe zram num_devices=3
> - configure a size for each device
>   + echo "1G" > /sys/block/$zram_name/disksize
> - mkfs and mount zram0 only
> - attempt to hot remove all three devices
>   + echo 2 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>   + echo 1 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>   + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>      - zram0 removal fails with EBUSY, as expected
> - unmount zram0
> - try zram0 hot remove again
>   + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>      - fails with ENODEV (unexpected)
> - unload zram kernel module
>   + completes successfully
> - zram0 device node still exists
> - attempt to mount /dev/zram0
>   + mount command is killed
>   + following BUG is encountered
> 
>  BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffa0002ba0
>  IP: [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
>  Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
>  CPU: 0 PID: 252 Comm: mount Not tainted 4.9.0-rc6 #176
>  task: ffff88001a9f2800 task.stack: ffffc90000300000
>  RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812eead6>]  [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
>  Call Trace:
>   [<ffffffff812eeb1c>] exact_lock+0xc/0x20
>   [<ffffffff813b3e1c>] kobj_lookup+0xdc/0x160
>   [<ffffffff812edce0>] ? disk_map_sector_rcu+0x70/0x70
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff812eef4f>] get_gendisk+0x2f/0x110
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff81126e2c>] __blkdev_get+0x10c/0x3c0
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff8112727d>] blkdev_get+0x19d/0x2e0
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff81127466>] blkdev_open+0x56/0x70
>   [<ffffffff810f3e0f>] do_dentry_open.isra.19+0x1ff/0x310
>   [<ffffffff810f4aa3>] vfs_open+0x43/0x60
>   [<ffffffff81103009>] path_openat+0x2c9/0xf30
>   [<ffffffff81023c00>] ? __save_stack_trace+0x40/0xd0
>   [<ffffffff81104b79>] do_filp_open+0x79/0xd0
>   [<ffffffff81538219>] ? kmemleak_alloc+0x49/0xa0
>   [<ffffffff810f4e44>] do_sys_open+0x114/0x1e0
>   [<ffffffff810f4f29>] SyS_open+0x19/0x20
>   [<ffffffff8153c2e0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94
> 
> This patch adds the proper error check in hot_remove_store() not to
> call idr_remove() unconditionally.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
> Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>

Forgot to add Fixes tag:

Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")


Takashi


> ---
>  drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> index 04365b17ee67..5163c8f918cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -1403,7 +1403,8 @@ static ssize_t hot_remove_store(struct class *class,
>  	zram = idr_find(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
>  	if (zram) {
>  		ret = zram_remove(zram);
> -		idr_remove(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
> +		if (!ret)
> +			idr_remove(&zram_index_idr, dev_id);
>  	} else {
>  		ret = -ENODEV;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.10.2
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527136

FromMinchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Date2016-11-22 01:20 +0100
Message-ID<sG6Yx-8hE-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1526673
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:21:40PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> The zram hot removal code calls idr_remove() even when zram_remove()
> returns an error (typically -EBUSY).  This results in a leftover at
> the device release, eventually leading to a crash when the module is
> reloaded.
> 
> As described in the bug report below, the following procedure would
> cause an Oops with zram:
> 
> - provision three zram devices via modprobe zram num_devices=3
> - configure a size for each device
>   + echo "1G" > /sys/block/$zram_name/disksize
> - mkfs and mount zram0 only
> - attempt to hot remove all three devices
>   + echo 2 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>   + echo 1 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>   + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>      - zram0 removal fails with EBUSY, as expected
> - unmount zram0
> - try zram0 hot remove again
>   + echo 0 > /sys/class/zram-control/hot_remove
>      - fails with ENODEV (unexpected)
> - unload zram kernel module
>   + completes successfully
> - zram0 device node still exists
> - attempt to mount /dev/zram0
>   + mount command is killed
>   + following BUG is encountered
> 
>  BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffa0002ba0
>  IP: [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
>  Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
>  CPU: 0 PID: 252 Comm: mount Not tainted 4.9.0-rc6 #176
>  task: ffff88001a9f2800 task.stack: ffffc90000300000
>  RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812eead6>]  [<ffffffff812eead6>] get_disk+0x16/0x50
>  Call Trace:
>   [<ffffffff812eeb1c>] exact_lock+0xc/0x20
>   [<ffffffff813b3e1c>] kobj_lookup+0xdc/0x160
>   [<ffffffff812edce0>] ? disk_map_sector_rcu+0x70/0x70
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff812eef4f>] get_gendisk+0x2f/0x110
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff81126e2c>] __blkdev_get+0x10c/0x3c0
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff8112727d>] blkdev_get+0x19d/0x2e0
>   [<ffffffff81127410>] ? blkdev_get_by_dev+0x50/0x50
>   [<ffffffff81127466>] blkdev_open+0x56/0x70
>   [<ffffffff810f3e0f>] do_dentry_open.isra.19+0x1ff/0x310
>   [<ffffffff810f4aa3>] vfs_open+0x43/0x60
>   [<ffffffff81103009>] path_openat+0x2c9/0xf30
>   [<ffffffff81023c00>] ? __save_stack_trace+0x40/0xd0
>   [<ffffffff81104b79>] do_filp_open+0x79/0xd0
>   [<ffffffff81538219>] ? kmemleak_alloc+0x49/0xa0
>   [<ffffffff810f4e44>] do_sys_open+0x114/0x1e0
>   [<ffffffff810f4f29>] SyS_open+0x19/0x20
>   [<ffffffff8153c2e0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94
> 
> This patch adds the proper error check in hot_remove_store() not to
> call idr_remove() unconditionally.
> 
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
> Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527172

FromSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Date2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
Message-ID<sG84h-rl-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527136
Cc Andrew

On (11/22/16 09:11), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > This patch adds the proper error check in hot_remove_store() not to
> > call idr_remove() unconditionally.
> > 
> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
> > Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>


> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>

Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]

Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>

	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527173

FromMinchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Date2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
Message-ID<sG84h-rl-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527172
Hi Sergey,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:09:30AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Cc Andrew
> 
> On (11/22/16 09:11), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > This patch adds the proper error check in hot_remove_store() not to
> > > call idr_remove() unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
> > > Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> 
> 
> > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> 
> Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]

17ec4cd98578 marked as stable: [4.2+] so we should mark this patch as
4.2+.

Thanks.

> 
> Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
> 

> 	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527177

FromSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Date2016-11-22 02:30 +0100
Message-ID<sG84h-rl-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527173
On (11/22/16 10:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> > Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]
> 
> 17ec4cd98578 marked as stable: [4.2+] so we should mark this patch as
> 4.2+.

well, no objections. except that the patch in question was
not picked up -stable
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.2#n1365

the change appears starting from 4.5
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.5#n1371

	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527178

FromMinchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Date2016-11-22 02:40 +0100
Message-ID<sG8dX-uk-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527177
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:28:12AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/16 10:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> > > Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]
> > 
> > 17ec4cd98578 marked as stable: [4.2+] so we should mark this patch as
> > 4.2+.
> 
> well, no objections. except that the patch in question was
> not picked up -stable
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.2#n1365
> 
> the change appears starting from 4.5
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.5#n1371

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.4.34#n1370

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527180

FromSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Date2016-11-22 02:40 +0100
Message-ID<sG8dX-uk-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527178
On (11/22/16 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:28:12AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/22/16 10:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> > > > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> > > > Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]
> > > 
> > > 17ec4cd98578 marked as stable: [4.2+] so we should mark this patch as
> > > 4.2+.
> > 
> > well, no objections. except that the patch in question was
> > not picked up -stable
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.2#n1365
> > 
> > the change appears starting from 4.5
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.5#n1371


> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.4.34#n1370

oh, ok. good find. 4.4+ then? there are no affected stable/longterm
kernels older than 4.4.x anyway (4.1 lts has no dynamic zram management).

	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527244

FromTakashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
Date2016-11-22 07:00 +0100
Message-ID<sGchz-34U-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527180
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 02:39:13 +0100,
Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 
> On (11/22/16 10:33), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:28:12AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (11/22/16 10:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> > > > > Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> > > > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]
> > > > 
> > > > 17ec4cd98578 marked as stable: [4.2+] so we should mark this patch as
> > > > 4.2+.
> > > 
> > > well, no objections. except that the patch in question was
> > > not picked up -stable
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.2#n1365
> > > 
> > > the change appears starting from 4.5
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.5#n1371
> 
> 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c?id=refs/tags/v4.4.34#n1370
> 
> oh, ok. good find. 4.4+ then? there are no affected stable/longterm
> kernels older than 4.4.x anyway (4.1 lts has no dynamic zram management).

Right, at least, 4.4.x hits the issue (actually the original bug
report was for 4.4.x).


thanks,

Takashi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527256

FromSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Date2016-11-22 07:40 +0100
Message-ID<sGcUh-3Bq-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1527172
A correction,

On (11/22/16 10:09), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1010970
> > > Reported-and-tested-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: David Disseldorp <ddiss@suse.de>
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
> 
> 
> > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> 
> Link: lkml.kernel.org/r/20161121132140.12683-1-tiwai@suse.de
> Fixes: 17ec4cd98578 ("zram: don't call idr_remove() from zram_remove()")
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>    [4.5+]
				   ^^^^ 4.4+


> Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>



but somehow I didn't notice that Takashi Cc'd stable in the original patch.
so mine can be dropped.

	-ss

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web